Prorogation and the Queen

On what evidence are people asserting that Boris Johnson "misled the Queen" when
requesting prorogation of Parliament? For all we know, the Queen was perfectly well aware
of what the Prime Minister's true reasons were for making the request, and was happy to go
along with it. The Supreme Court correctly decided that the advice to the Queen was, in the
circumstances, unlawful. Whether the Queen was or was not misled was irrelevant to their
decision. The prevalent assumption that she was misled is no more than an assumption.
Evidence for it appears to be lacking.

The rôle of the Queen in the prorogation débacle is, on the face of it, an unhappy one. The
legal basis upon which any Prime Minister is entitled to request the Queen to exercise the
royal prerogative on any matter (such as the prorogation of Parliament) and the legal basis
upon which the Queen is entitled to act on that request, is that he and his administration
enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. The Queen's advisers within her household
know this. On just what evidence, if any, one wonders, did those household advisers and the
Queen herself reach the conclusion that Prime Minister Johnson enjoyed the confidence of
the House when he requested prorogation? And if, following the Supreme Court's decision
yesterday, Mr Johnson were once more to request a prorogation, one wonders whether
those household advisers should not scrutinise the evidence on this matter rather more
closely.