Exactly...don't some say she talks to Harry nearly every day. Not that I believe that...

Yeah because it makes sense to start legal action against a story she knows to be true? Sure.

when diana died, there was all sorts of crap. The public were expecting the royal institution to kick into play and have a respectful mourning period. The institution was blamed, but it was specifically the queen that would not allow the flag on the palace to be flown at half mast etc. It was only after extreme public pressure that she relented. If that story about Harry not asking for permission came from the palace, it came from the queen. Thats the kind of person she is. They could have settled things down by saying nothing, but they chose to ramp it up a notch. I don't know how that type of behaviour can be defended.

The queen was bullied into making a statement when all she was trying to do was protect the 2 boys.

A fair assessment but when these sources are unnamed and unverifiable it leaves the press and other open to stirring meaning we still wouldn't know either way.

What is more institutional in this Country than the royal family?

Right, are you going to address anything I said in the post you chose to quote or are you scrambling for a topic that will stick?

People can be annoyed about whatever they want and have opinions on it. Nothing strange about that.

Im saying the institution in this country is the royal family, or at least it's centred around them. So when you say the 'institution' regarding this matter, who are you referring to exactly?

You can say the press as they would fall under the 'institution' but when don't they fuel any fire, regarding anything?!

What Harry and Meghan need to accept is it works both ways, they can't have it all their own way. Using the press for photo ops in Uganda with starving kids is all good and well, celebs do this often to promote their own brand, but they can't turn around and have a tantrum at every time the press are critical of them either.

The institution is the "business" side, very different from the "the family". I would imagine most senior Royals know very little of what goes on day to day, HR issues, hiring and firing of staff, daily running of the homes etc etc. They have staff for that....same as any business.

None of that bears any relation to anything I said. Sorry.

Then what are you saying, maybe i missed something? :shrug:

You didn't really say anything in the post you asked me to address.

Yet you decided to quote it and pretend I'd said something else. :shrug:

I don't need to explain my post, it's self explanatory.

Yeah in many ways i agree. But the family are the business, without the individuals, there is no business.

The Government is an institution, who do we blame when things go wrong in the country, injustices, failure? We blame the individuals heading the Government, not the institution itself.

The waters are very mucky when in comes to humanistic issues. 'Institution' is to vague a word with matters like this imo.

The Queen was shamed into making an eventual statement on Princess Diana.

She should be now.
How any Great Grandmother can allow this speculation to continue, to be there to be brought up possibly now all through this new born child's life.

Actually I as a Royalist am appalled she hasn't just issued an official statement from herself.
I think it's pathetic of her.

Incorrect.
Her family and friends called her it in private.

Pathetic is the right word as their silence on the matter has been the issue from the start. No wonder members get frustrated.

The queen wasnt shamed into making a statement at all..

The queen remained silent to protect the boys..

The public bullied her into a statement

The palace’s refusal to deny BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond’s report that Her
Majesty was "never asked" her opinion on the couple’s decision to name the baby after
her childhood nickname speaks volumes about the ongoing disconnect between the
institution and the Sussexes’ stateside operation.

Royal aides have become increasingly vexed by Harry and Meghan’s representatives -
both official and self-appointed - claiming to speak for the 95-year-old monarch when
they are in no position to do so.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...ance-sussexes/

Which came from her father…

It is pathetic Marsh.
What Great Grandmother of any decency would want to see headlines in gutter trash publications reporting negatively on her nickname being given to her new addition to her family.

I would doubt the Queen is the only one called Elizabeth who has had that nickname.

This is her newest Great Granddaughter, yet in years to come it's likely these headlines will be shoved in this child's face.
How can any Great Grandmother just sit back and allow this to build.

If she has even a scrap of decency she should speak out now against any publication or people making negative comments on this child's name.

She should be proud to see it continued.
Not have this negative welcome fuss about her new Great Granddaughter.

No one really knows what that little old lady thinks, probably fed up with all the fuss.

I think it may be found it came from her Grandfather King George V. originally.

It was her Grandfather that started it.
Gone on for a few generations.
Her best friends and ladies in waiting still use the name in private with her.:shrug:

So before her friends then…