Queen Elizabeth ‘Loved Prince Harry Right to the End,’ Royal Author Says

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.

That’s according to Robert Hardman, the author of a definitive new book on King Charles, for which he was given access to the king and his circle and which made global headlines this week after a source was described as saying the queen was “as angry as I’ve ever seen her” after a row over the name.

William Was Disgusted by Harry’s Attack on His Wife Kate‘FRATERNAL SECRETS’

Tom Sykes

Hardman, in his book, The Making of a King: King Charles III and the Modern Monarchy, 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.”

Despite this story making global headlines, the book itself generally keeps away from excessive Harry-bashing. Indeed, 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.”

Hardman says in his book that King Charles is not, contrary to some reports last year, actively seeking to evict Andrew from his palatial home, Royal Lodge, which he shares with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, and that as long as Andrew can afford to maintain the property, he can stay there. Intriguingly, he also writes that some “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.’” This meshes with an account in Omid Scobie’s recent book Endgame which claimed that at one stage Charles “was in tears because he was afraid for Andrew’s mental health.”

So is the relationship between the two brothers perhaps not as bad as has sometimes been portrayed?

“The relationship has never been super close, partly because of the difference in age. They are more than 10 years apart [Andrew is 63 and Charles is 75]. But there is a sense of kinship. They both went through hell in the nineties, with both of their marriages collapsing in a very public way at the same time.

“There is great sympathy for that, but, for Charles, ultimately the institution trumps family loyalties. So, any return to public life is out of the question.”

Hardman is an unashamed fan of Charles, and has spent many hours in his company, making TV shows and writing articles and books, in a 30 year career of writing about the royals.

He admits that he likes him.

“I feel I’ve got a sense of the man and I find that he’s immensely charming and very thoughtful. He has immaculate manners, even when people are incredibly rude. I think he’s very brave. It’s always worth revisiting the incident in a park in Sydney in 1994 on Australia Day, when a man came at him with a gun, and he didn’t even blink. [It subsequently emerged the man had loaded the gun with blanks].

“There is a sort of stoic calm. Maybe it’s fatalism, or perhaps it’s the sense that when my day comes, it comes. One thing I was keen to convey in the book is that there’s a narrative, perpetuated by The Crown in its later series, of an impatient prince desperate to wield power, wanting his mother to step aside. That was never a thing with him. He genuinely took the view, ‘The day will come. I don’t want it any sooner than it has to be.’

“When the government was trying to make plans for the change of reign, wanting to discuss what would happen, what sort of coronation to plan, and they were asking for meetings with the prince, he refused. He didn’t want to discuss it. He didn’t want to appear impatient.”

Does he think that Prince William will grant his father the same courtesy?"

“Yes, I do. I don’t get any sense otherwise. 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.”

On the subject of Charles’ relations with his other son, Harry, Hardman says: “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.”

He says in the book that the relationship between Charles and William has strengthened since the rift with Harry emerged. What does he make of reports that they actually have very different approaches?

“Inevitably, you get tensions between the heir and the monarch, whether in family companies or ancestral estates. There’s often tension over how things are going to be done; the young crew don’t want to have opera in the garden, they want to have a rave.”

But he doesn’t perceive excessive tension between son and heir?

“No, not really. Of course they are different. Charles doesn’t start his week with a blast of AC/DC, for example. But the more William’s in those shoes and seeing what it entails, I think there’s a greater appreciation for his father.” He says the relationship has also been helped by greater proximity: “Charles spends about two days a week down at Windsor, where [the Waleses] live.”

And what does he make of the latest royal drama, the simultaneous hospitalization of Kate Middleton and Charles?

Has the monarchy “slimmed down” too much?

“Charles himself has never actually said, ‘I want to slim down the monarchy.’ What he wants is a modern monarchy, of a piece with what we’ve seen in other monarchies around the world, like the Danish, who cut back on those who are actually in the royal loop. I think it’s what the public expect.”

He says that the recent double health scare, which is likely to see Kate, William and Charles all having a very low profile is “problematic” but insists, “they can cope.”

He says, “They say that the princess will be up and about by Easter. The fact that all this stuff is happening in January—well, it’s probably the easiest time of year for it to happen because it’s the quietest royal month.”

The greatly reduced royal visibility in the weeks ahead, he concedes, speaks of a “a shortage” of key figures but adds, “You can’t just manufacture royals.”

Well, no, but the king could bring Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice back? Is that a possibility?

“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.”