Princess Anne raised concerns about a 'decent hat' that blocked Prince Harry's view of the king's coronation but was told to wear by organizers, a new book has revealed

The Princess Royal had raised concerns with coronation organizers that a feather on her headpiece would make for 'quite a large hat', but a new royal book says she should wear it anyway.

The hat in question proved to be one of the main talking points on social media during the historic event in May – after it blocked the view of Prince Harry, who sat behind Princess Anne in Westminster Abbey.

The Duke of Sussex, 39, was relegated to the third row during the king's coronation, where he sat between Princess Eugenie's husband Jack Brooksbank and the late Queen Elizabeth II's cousin, Princess Alexandra.

Many online were quick to speculate whether the placement of Anne's enormous quill directly in front of her nephew was a deliberate move to “punish” Harry, who was outspoken in his criticism of the royal family in his Netflix series and memoir Spare.

But in Robert Hardman's new book, Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story, the princess defends herself and explains that she changed seats at the last minute in the hope of a 'quick exit'.

The author writes: 'At the coronation itself, Prince Harry sat in the third row of the royal section, immediately behind Princess Anne, who wore a striking red-plumed bicorn hat that remained on her head the entire time.

'Snipers on social media immediately concluded that Harry had been deliberately placed behind his aunt's top hat to block his view.

'This is nonsense. Not only does the Lord Chamberlain's Office not think so, but the Princess Royal had only moved to that seat after her request for an early departure.

“The hat was an interesting question,” the princess later recalled. 'I said, 'Are you sure I should keep the hat on? Because it's a pretty big hat.” And the answer was yes. There you go. Not my choice.'

The revelation is made in Mr Hardman's new biography of King Charles, which is being serialized exclusively by the Daily Mail.

Elsewhere in the book, it is claimed that Queen Elizabeth was infuriated by Harry and Meghan Markle's claim that she had given her blessing to their daughter called Lilibet.

A member of her staff says the late monarch was 'as angry as I'd ever seen her' after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex publicly stated they wouldn't have used her private family nickname if she hadn't been 'supportive' .

The couple even instructed their law firm, Schillings, to write to news channels and publishers – particularly the BBC – claiming they had not been asked for permission, were false and defamatory and should not be repeated.

The hat in question proved to be one of the main talking points on social media at the historic occasion in May – after it blocked the view of Prince Harry, who was sitting behind Princess Anne (pictured) in Westminster Abbey

But when the Sussexes tried to 'co-opt' Buckingham Palace to 'support' their version of events, they were 'rebuffed'.

Speaking to members of the royal family, friends and palace staff past and present, Mr Hardman's insight into Harry's relationships with family members is fascinating.

In 2021, his and Meghan's decision to welcome their new daughter Lilibet, who was born in California and has only been to Britain briefly once, raised eyebrows.

Lilibet was the late Queen's affectionate childhood nickname, which is said to have arisen because Princess Elizabeth could never pronounce her name correctly as a child.

It was only used by her parents, King George VI, the Queen Mother, and her sister, Princess Margaret, as well as her husband, Prince Philip, and a handful of close friends.

Charles III: new king, new court. The Inside Story' by Robert Hardman is published by Macmillan on January 18 for £22

The BBC reported at the time that a palace source had said the Queen had not been asked by the Duke and Duchess if they could use it.

Other sources told the media, including the Mail, that although the Queen received calls from her grandson and his wife, she felt she was not in a position to say no.

But the Sussexes' spokesman insisted the couple would not have used the name if the Queen had not been 'supportive'.

They said at the time: 'The Duke spoke to his family ahead of the announcement – in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called.

During that conversation, he shared their hopes to name their daughter Lilibet in her honor. If she hadn't supported her, they wouldn't have used the name.”

Strongly worded legal letters were then sent.

Mr Hardman writes that some of the late monarch's household were particularly 'interested' that, amid a wealth of private family information and criticism of staff members, Harry mysteriously 'omitted' the entire incident from his memoirs .

The author says: 'One privately recalled that Elizabeth II had been 'as angry as I had ever seen her' in 2021, after the Sussexes announced she had given them the blessing to name their baby daughter 'Lilibet', the queen's childhood nickname. .

'The couple subsequently fired off warnings of legal action against anyone who dared to suggest otherwise, as the BBC had done. However, when the Sussexes tried to co-opt the palace to support their version of events, they were rebuffed.

“Once again it was a case of 'memories may vary' – the late Queen's response to the Oprah Winfrey interview – as far as Her Majesty was concerned.

“Those vociferous threats of legal action have disappeared and the defamation actions against the BBC never materialized.”

Charles III: new king, new court. The Inside Story' by Robert Hardman is published by Macmillan on January 18 for £22.