Sorry to say but you are writing nonsense here.
No John, it is you who are posting nonsense by repeating current inaccurate history. I'm posting what actually happened. Here is a report from an impeccable source including the early truth of what actually finally happened to the British supersonic project that was dropped in favour of the French design:
FLIGHT, 23 November 1961
AIR
COMMERCE
SUPERSONIC ENTENTE ?
ALTHOUGH no official comment is forthcoming, it is believed
that a Guardian report last week, to the effect that Sud-
Aviation will assume design leadership of a joint Anglo-French
supersonic airliner project, is substantially correct. The air correspondent of the newspaper says that the British design for a six engined long-haul M2.2 airliner "is now almost certain to be
dropped" and that two versions of the four-engined Sud design
will be developed instead. According to the report, design leadership will go to Sud under M Pierre Sartre.
It appears certain that no actual decision has yet been taken by
Mr Peter Thorneycroft, Minister of Aviation. Any such decision
would obviously be a political one, paving the way for a cementing
of a close technical working association that has existed between
BAC and Sud for some considerable time past. While both the
British and the French obviously recognize the advantages of a
joint supersonic airliner programme, the most delicate of all the
issues involved—and one which may well require a solution on a
political level—is the matter of design leadership. If The Guardian
report proves to be correct, French design leadership of an Anglo-
French supersonic airliner will represent a major change in British
policy. As the newspaper puts it: "the British Government has
been anxious to improve its European image; and Mr Thorneycroft
has found an apparently happy political and economic solution
in proposing that his two expensive children, space and supersonic airliners, should be the first offspring of the intended marriage."
Discussions between the French and British Governments and
manufacturers are at an early stage, and any joint project would
still be very much concerned with "feasibility." Both BAC and Sud
have been working on feasibility studies for their respective governments for the past year or so. Both studies have in common the M2.2 design parameter; but whereas the French design (typified by the Super Caravelle project, of which a model was shown at the Paris Salon last May) is a four-engined machine for medium ranges, the British design (which began as the Bristol 198 under Dr Russell, and which has become the BAC-198) is a six-engined project for North Atlantic operations. It seems logical to attempt to apply one basic airframe and propulsion system to both requirements.
It is likely that a joint project will be British-powered, either
by Bristol Siddeley—with an advanced Olympus—or by Rolls-
Royce. If the Bristol Siddeley engines are chosen, the propulsion
system would move forward as a joint SNECMA/Bristol Siddeley
effort, for the two firms have been partners since sleeve-valve days.
A vast amount of basic research and airframe development work
has been done in both countries, and it is believed that a great
deal of information has already been exchanged on a technical
level. There appears to be no doubt in either the French or British
industry that, notwithstanding the declared American intention
to proceed with a Mach 3 airliner, Mach 2.2 is the logical and
technically correct first step towards supersonic air transport.
Obviously, the immense cost of a supersonic airliner programme
—anything between £100m-£200m for the production of a prototype— would be shared by the two countries.
End of quote.
It was for this French design origin that France not only got their way on the name but also had the honour of making the first test flight, the first paying passenger flight, the first transatlantic flight and the final transatlantic flight. Not chauvinism, just recognition.
.
