The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021

[Claire]

There was a definite push from BP about Meghan been the first non- European to marry into the family. If I am not mistaken that would have been one of the Harewood's? SO essentially the palace drew that distinction themselves.

Personally I felt the whole interview was M&H attempting to establish themselves as the owners of the mental health and racism portfolio. Essentially the royals cannot say anything about the issues as this is what they did to us - we are the authorities on those issues in the royal world. Question - I sincerely doubt William and Harry were the first brutish royals to talk about mental health. But since they are the ones that spearheaded it into the public spotlight - why cant both the Cambridge's and the Sussex's work on it - it is not as it there is a limited need for the cause.
As far as racisms is concerned - I don't think any senior royal will touch it now - they might do an engagement here and there.

 

[AC21091968]

There was a definite push from BP about Meghan been the first non- European to marry into the family. If I am not mistaken that would have been one of the Harewood's? SO essentially the palace drew that distinction themselves.

Personally I felt the whole interview was M&H attempting to establish themselves as the owners of the mental health and racism portfolio. Essentially the royals cannot say anything about the issues as this is what they did to us - we are the authorities on those issues in the royal world. Question - I sincerely doubt William and Harry were the first brutish royals to talk about mental health. But since they are the ones that spearheaded it into the public spotlight - why cant both the Cambridge's and the Sussex's work on it - it is not as it there is a limited need for the cause.
As far as racisms is concerned - I don't think any senior royal will touch it now - they might do an engagement here and there.

I thought it was Gary Lewis (builder and sheep sheerer, husband of Lady Davina Windsor, sadly now divorced) who was the first non-European to marry into the Royal Family in 2004. Unless I'm missing something new, because I don't know much about the Harewood branch.

Not exactly in royal family, but Maddison May Brudenell (daughter of Edwina Hicks, granddaughter of Lady Pamela Hicks, great-granddaughter of 1st Earl Mountbatten) married Ola Modupe-Ojo (music producer) in 2015, who is also of non-European descent.

https://www.thepeerage.com/p6611.htm#i66108
https://www.tatler.com/article/maddison-may-modupe-ojo-interview-granddaughter-lady-pamela-hick

 

[Heavs]

There was a definite push from BP about Meghan been the first non- European to marry into the family. If I am not mistaken that would have been one of the Harewood's? SO essentially the palace drew that distinction themselves.

Personally I felt the whole interview was M&H attempting to establish themselves as the owners of the mental health and racism portfolio. Essentially the royals cannot say anything about the issues as this is what they did to us - we are the authorities on those issues in the royal world. Question - I sincerely doubt William and Harry were the first brutish royals to talk about mental health. But since they are the ones that spearheaded it into the public spotlight - why cant both the Cambridge's and the Sussex's work on it - it is not as it there is a limited need for the cause.
As far as racisms is concerned - I don't think any senior royal will touch it now - they might do an engagement here and there.

I don't think the Cambridges will stop talking about mental health, they've built their whole foundation around it. And stopping doing it would be worse than forging ahead with whatever was planned next. Kate is still having Early Years meetings and they're talking to mental health team co-ordinators etc when making hospital trust phone calls.

As for racism, I don't know. I think they'll still visit charities set up to help mainly BAME people as they currently do and areas with majority non white populations. As for documentaries tackling the subject in the same way they did the environment and mental health, probably not but that would generally be considered too explicitly political anyway.

 

[Claire]

It appears that CBS has released a statement that Oprah is not a journalist and therefore does not have to stand up to journalistic ethics. This comes after many of the facts in the interview have come to be found to be incorrect. The Daily express has also found that the editing of the coverage of the newspapers headlines has been edited as well - in order to prove Meghan's story.

All false claims made in the interview -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9356741/Harry-Meghan-inconvenient-truth.html

New: Mail Online publisher Associated Newspapers makes complaint to Viacom CBS about headlines used in Oprah's Harry/Meghan interview to show "racism" in UK press. Called edited clippings a "deliberate distortion and doctoring" with some not even from UK titles. Story to follow

https://twitter.com/x/status/1370433902981054465

Harpo statement :
Update: Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions has issued a statement (reported by Variety) defending its journalism. “Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, shared in the interview their personal story. We stand by the broadcast in its entirety.”

By stating this they are staying that the inaccuracy's are the Sussex's and the Sussex's alone and not Harpo Productions and Oprah's to check.
I do have issues with this as by given them the platform they gave them a form of trustworthiness - as people tend to believe Oprah. Also note they are not answering the convenient editing.

 

[Mbruno]

Interesting how quickly the RF turned into not wanting to support mental health of one of its own and apparently stopping them from seeking treatment after:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39618169
Prince Harry has revealed he sought counselling after spending nearly 20 years "not thinking" about the death of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales.

He said he decided to act after his brother - the Duke of Cambridge - told him: "Look, you really need to deal with this. It is not normal to think that nothing has affected you."

Prince Harry said: "Some of the best people or easiest people to speak to is a shrink or whoever - the Americans call them shrinks - someone you have never met before.

"You sit down on the sofa and say 'listen, I don't actually need your advice. Can you just listen'. And you just let it all rip."

Asked whether he had counselling, he said: "I've done that a couple of times, more than a couple of times, but it's great."

But he said he could "safely say" his concerns were not related to his service as a soldier in Afghanistan.

On taking up boxing, Prince Harry told the paper: "Everyone was saying boxing is good for you and it's a really good way of letting out aggression.

"And that really saved me because I was on the verge of punching someone."


***
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36880847
Prince Harry has spoken of his regret that he did not talk about how the death of his mother, Princess Diana, affected him until three years ago.

Prince Harry, 31, was speaking as he hosted an event for the mental health charity, Heads Together, which was attended by a number of sports stars.

He told the BBC the event was an opportunity to highlight that anyone can suffer from mental health issues.

The prince told BBC Breakfast: "It is OK to suffer, but as long as you talk about it. It is not a weakness. Weakness is having a problem and not recognising it and not solving that problem."

He said the event was an opportunity to show that "unflappable" sporting personalities can suffer from mental health problems like everyone else, including members of the Royal Family.

***
The Duke of Cambridge, President of the FA, meets players and fans from grassroots to the elite of the game and openly discusses their mental health challenges.

The BBC documentary 'Football, Prince William and Our Mental Health' follows The Duke as part of the the Heads Up mental health campaign, which aims to harness the influence and power of football to generate the biggest conversation ever on mental health and build on the great work already happening across the game.

***
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52308863
Coronavirus: Royal couple say lockdown 'stressful' on mental health

Coronavirus lockdown is "stressful" for many people and it is important to look after mental health, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have said.

Prince William said there was an "ever-increasing need" for people to know where to access help and support.

"While that's hugely important we mustn't forget our mental well-being as well and making sure you're reaching out to those people around you that you have access to - even if it's over the phone or online to really make sure you have those conversations," she said.

Meghan said that she and Harry didn’t tell any other member of the Family about her mental health issues because they were “ ashamed” of admitting it. That is odd condidering that other Family members ,including Harry, have spoken publicly about their own mental health struggles in the past . In any case, however, she did not specifically blame the Family in this particular instance for denying her help ( if the Family didn’t know anything, they couldn’t have done anything about it, could they ?).

Instead, what I take from the interview is that she was blaming senior people in the Palace and then HR for being unresponsive or uncooperative.

 

[Osipi]

It appears that CBS has released a statement that Oprah is not a journalist and therefore does not have to stand up to journalistic ethics. This comes after many of the facts in the interview have come to be found to be incorrect. The Daily express has also found that the editing of the coverage of the newspapers headlines has been edited as well - in order to prove Meghan's story.

All false claims made in the interview -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9356741/Harry-Meghan-inconvenient-truth.html

New: Mail Online publisher Associated Newspapers makes complaint to Viacom CBS about headlines used in Oprah's Harry/Meghan interview to show "racism" in UK press. Called edited clippings a "deliberate distortion and doctoring" with some not even from UK titles. Story to follow

https://twitter.com/x/status/1370433902981054465

Harpo statement :
Update: Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions has issued a statement (reported by Variety) defending its journalism. “Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, shared in the interview their personal story. We stand by the broadcast in its entirety.”

By stating this they are staying that the inaccuracy's are the Sussex's and the Sussex's alone and not Harpo Productions and Oprah's to check.
I do have issues with this as by given them the platform they gave them a form of trustworthiness - as people tend to believe Oprah. Also note they are not answering the convenient editing.

Anybody else besides me feel CBS's credibility rating drop like an egg off of the London Eye? Of course, these discrepancies being pointed out will most likely never reach the ears and eyes of the American public. As much as the interview, itself, was covered widely by the American mainstream news channels, I would bet my last bag of M&Ms that these stories about the editing will not be covered much if at all. I hope to be proven wrong on this.

Harry and Meghan cannot be that dense that they couldn't or wouldn't realize that each word, each gesture and each "bomb" would be dissected and analyzed to the nth degree after that interview. I'm recalling though a previous post here where the differences between UK and US media is that the US media has a much more relaxed stance on what is printed, put on a website or broadcast. Meghan could call Britain and file a complaint in regards to Piers Morgan's words but here in the US, a major television network issues a statement that they're not responsible for the content of their programming. This tells me a lot.

Anything for the almighty green dollar and ratings.

 

[Harald]

It appears that CBS has released a statement that Oprah is not a journalist and therefore does not have to stand up to journalistic ethics. This comes after many of the facts in the interview have come to be found to be incorrect. The Daily express has also found that the editing of the coverage of the newspapers headlines has been edited as well - in order to prove Meghan's story.

Yep. By labeling it infotainment American media can get away legally with spouting a lot of nonsense and falsehoods.

 

[AC21091968]

Anybody else besides me feel CBS's credibility rating drop like an egg off of the London Eye? Of course, these discrepancies being pointed out will most likely never reach the ears and eyes of the American public. As much as the interview, itself, was covered widely by the American mainstream news channels, I would bet my last bag of M&Ms that these stories about the editing will not be covered much if at all. I hope to be proven wrong on this.

Harry and Meghan cannot be that dense that they couldn't or wouldn't realize that each word, each gesture and each "bomb" would be dissected and analyzed to the nth degree after that interview. I'm recalling though a previous post here where the differences between UK and US media is that the US media has a much more relaxed stance on what is printed, put on a website or broadcast. Meghan could call Britain and file a complaint in regards to Piers Morgan's words but here in the US, a major television network issues a statement that they're not responsible for the content of their programming. This tells me a lot.

Anything for the almighty green dollar and ratings.

I have to agree with you on CBS's credibility as a broadcasting network, where it has in my view gone down like a lead balloon. It's shocking that they don't take the responsibility of content in their program. And don't get me started on their defence of Oprah Winfrey, who she herself should have done proper research on their guests. It does not matter if she is a journalist or not, but as a TV host she should have been knowledgeable on the topic she is going to interview. She also should be willing to ask important questions so the audience could understand and be clear on the guest's response.

 

[Denville]

I have to agree with you on CBS's credibility as a broadcasting network, where it has in my view gone down like a lead balloon. It's shocking that they don't take the responsibility of content in their program. And don't get me started on their defence of Oprah Winfrey, who she herself should have done proper research on their guests. It does not matter if she is a journalist or not, but as a TV host she should have been knowledgeable on the topic she is going to interview. She also should be willing to ask important questions so the audience could understand and be clear on the guest's response.

but that was not what the interview was about. It was clearly a way fro Harry and Meg to put "their story" to the American public and make themeslves look good, and obviously they also wanted to attack the RF... and for Oprah to "have a scoop".

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The racist accusation Archie not being a prince because of the skin is beyond ridiculous. If the BRF were racist, they would not have allowed the marriage in the first place. I am sure there was a remark about how the child would look but why not? I can give the example of Boris Becker, a white red haired person, who, like Harry had children with (partly) black women. Of course in Germany there was a lot of speculation, how the children would look because it's not a combination that happens every day. Does asking this question make a person racist? My answer is certainly not. And as it turns out, Becker's children look totally different, from mainly the mothers black genes to mainly the fathers white/red hair genes. So of course in Harry's and Meghan's case, the family will speculate about it, as will any other family I'm sure. But of course you can pull the victim/race card whenever it suits you. And another thing, if you make an accusation like that, you have to disclose name and source or you remain silent. But of course that is not the purpose, as they will milk this subject until it has run its course for money and attention.

And don't even get me started on Meghan not checking out Harry on google ...


I was stunned to see Harry complain that Daddy closed his wallet and does not take his calls anymore. Welcome to the real world, I thought. I guess once his mother's inheritance is gone and other income plans fall flat, he will become the famous hot potato. The kind of lifestyle those live who the Sussexes plan to mingle with, 13 Mio is not much, so it's clear they are out for the big money, and fast. Question is, was the interview only the beginning or the beginning of the end, because the story will be boring soon, the bad family and the bad media and the poor prince and his poor wife. I'm Team BRF, don't let the door hit you on the way out!

 

[Osipi]

Yet another program aired about the life and times of the British royal family that definitely should have had a disclaimer aired before the program started stating "The views expressed during this program do not necessarily reflect the views of this station"

One thing that does strike me though, CBS obviously has gotten quite a few messages that it was deemed that they had to make *some* kind of an announcement.

And the saga continues.....

 

[Claire]

Ethically, however I expect more from a human being. Yes - I am possibly naïve and downright stupid.
They ran knowing how it would be received, knowing what they were doing and are happy, gleefully happy about the outcome. I just shake my head.

 

[Denville]

Ethically, however I expect more from a human being. Yes - I am possibly naïve and downright stupid.
They ran knowing how it would be received, knowing what they were doing and are happy, gleefully happy about the outcome. I just shake my head.

I do think that the implication that Archie wouldn't get security etc. because of his racial origins just shows how low they can go, in terms of what they'll do to make the RF look bad and themselves look good. I was always ambivalent abuot Harry, and didn't take to Meghan but even so I'm rather shocked how badly they've behaved..
Harry - the lad, the jolly informal chap who didn't want a fuss made over him.. if he ever existed, seems to have nothing to do with this man who will allow his wife to say outrageous things and to say outrageous things himself...who seems to think that he can do as he likes and someone else usually from his family, will support hm and pick up the pieces.

 

[Mirabel]

One thing that does strike me though, CBS obviously has gotten quite a few messages that it was deemed that they had to make *some* kind of an announcement.

And the saga continues.....

Oh yes, and Richard Kay's article debunking many of Meghan's disclosures will at least cast some doubt.

Meghan and Harry should keep in mind that the pendulum swings both ways.

 

[Osipi]

I do think that the implication that Archie wouldn't get security etc. because of his racial origins just shows how low they can go, in terms of what they'll do to make the RF look bad and themselves look good. I was always ambivalent abuot Harry, and didn't take to Meghan but even so I'm rather shocked how badly they've behaved..
Harry - the lad, the jolly informal chap who didn't want a fuss made over him.. if he ever existed, seems to have nothing to do with this man who will allow his wife to say outrageous things and to say outrageous things himself...who seems to think that he can do as he likes and someone else usually from his family, will support hm and pick up the pieces.

Up until this interview, I was one of the posters here that would always try and see the positives with this couple. I saw the huge potential they had for doing good and giving back and how they could be a huge asset to the BRF and the monarchy as a whole. I also thought that Meghan was absolutely persecuted in the media starting from when it first became public knowledge they were dating and having a long distance, over the pond relationship. I believed they were strong together and believed Meghan when she stated in Vanity Fair that she "tunes out the noise".

But there it was. In full color. For two hours. I don't discount that there were struggles and misunderstandings and brick walls that this couple ran into every where they turned, it seemed. Her family, the press, an 1,000+ year old institution that has as many quirks and protocols and traditions as politicians have lies. I thought if anyone could rise above all that, it would be them. The interview last Sunday has totally shot all that to pieces that can never be put back together again. I've lost just about any respect I've had for them and feel that this was the worse mistake they could have ever made.

I get the distinct feeling that Harry also feels that this wasn't perhaps a good move to make. It was the day *after* the interview aired that the disclaimer from Harry came out stating the statement about the skin tone was not the Queen or Philip. I'm wondering if there are others he may regret? This, alone, cannot be good for his mental health either.

The saddest part to me is that there are no do-overs. They cannot take it back. Most importantly though, in the eyes of so many people now, they can't be believed to be genuine or even trustworthy.

"Man does not weave the web of life. He is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself." (Chief Seattle) That sums it up for me.

 

[Heavs]

Ethically, however I expect more from a human being. Yes - I am possibly naïve and downright stupid.
They ran knowing how it would be received, knowing what they were doing and are happy, gleefully happy about the outcome. I just shake my head.

Yes they knew what they were doing. Anyone involved in the program could have contacted BP/KP/CH for clarification even just googled things themselves but they didn't. They're hiding behind "infotainment" and "their truth" just as much as Harry and Meghan are and don't care because they aren't going to get sued and they're making a lot of money.

If the interview had had to be fact check before it went out it would never have aired.

On the perennial topic: Someone also pointed out to me last night that taking potential skin colour off the table it's normal for families from different cultures to talk about that. e.g. Dara O'Briain used to talk about how strange at first it was it was for him and his family that he had English children despite his grandparents being in the Old (1920s) IRA and his dad being involved in the Gaelic movement.

 

[Denville]

The saddest part to me is that there are no do-overs. They cannot take it back. Most importantly though, in the eyes of so many people now, they can't be believed to be genuine or even trustworthy.

"Man does not weave the web of life. He is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself." (Chief Seattle) That sums it up for me.

Ah well. I always felt that Meghan was fake.. but even so, I didnt think she'd hit out quite like this, if only for self serving reasons ie that she knew that if things went wrong in the US, they'd have to turn to Charles to help them out so she would confine her attacks to the "grey men" sort of thing...rather than the RF proper.

. I think that Harry made that disclaimer saying that it wasn't his grandmother or Philip who made the racist remark.. because he dimly realizes that he went too far, but he's left it as now casting the suspicion mainly on Charles or William.. perhaps he reckons that as Charles DID finally stop taking his phone calls and stop helping financially he has noting to lose by attacking his fathter...
I wonder, I wonder, if Meghan ever intended to stay? If she'd been absolutely adored by the public and press the way Diana was.. would she and Harry have chosen to stay and she'd stifle her left leaning views and make her curtsies to the queen and Charles and so on...
Dont know. I can't help feeling that while she clearly wants public adoration, she always had the idea that she could and should be allowed to do the job as she wanted and that having "time out" to make money, perhaps return to acting at times, to return to the US when she felt like it... was always in her plans..

 

[Mbruno]

Anybody else besides me feel CBS's credibility rating drop like an egg off of the London Eye?

Their (weak) defense is, as they said, that Oprah is an entertainer, not a journalist, and, as such, she does not represent CBS News and is not held to the same standards.

Anyway, ViacomCBS, which also owns Paramount Pictures, is a huge multimedia conglomerate (probably the fourth largest in the US after AT&T/WarnerMedia, Comcast/NBCUniversal, and The Walt Disney Company, which also owns ABC and now 20th Century Fox). I don't think this particular incident will have any significant impact on its operations in North America or elsewhere in the world.

. I think that Harry made that disclaimer saying that it wasn't his grandmother or Philip who made the racist remark.. because he dimly realizes that he went too far, but he's left it as now casting the suspicion mainly on Charles or William.. perhaps he reckons that as Charles DID finally stop taking his phone calls and stop helping financially he has noting to lose by attacking his fathter...

If I understood it correctly, Charles stopped taking Harry's call when Harry was in Canada. Now he is taking his calls again, but the relationship between Harry and Charles is still strained.

 

[Denville]

Their (weak) defense is, as they said, that Oprah is an entertainer, not a journalist, and, as such, she does not represent CBS News and is not held to the same standards.

A



If I understood it correctly, Charles stopped taking Harry's call when Harry was in Canada. Now he is taking his calls again, but the relationship between Harry and Charles is still strained.

I was surprised that Charles was tough enough to stop taking the calls and cut off the money, so I think that that showed how utterly impossible harry was to deal with. So I think that if Charles has cut off funds, Harry reckons that there is nothing to be gained by being nice about him.... I think he purely sees his fahter as a source of money....

 

[Heavs]

. I think that Harry made that disclaimer saying that it wasn't his grandmother or Philip who made the racist remark.. because he dimly realizes that he went too far, but he's left it as now casting the suspicion mainly on Charles or William.. perhaps he reckons that as Charles DID finally stop taking his phone calls and stop helping financially he has noting to lose by attacking his fathter...
.

I'm sure he "clarified" things because he realised people were assuming it was his 99 year old in hospital grandfather or his 94 year old grandmother because of Philip's past and their general age and that was out of order, but by not clarifying anything else about it suspicion and assuming the most malicious motives for making the comment has mostly fallen on his father and brother.

I've seen people say he only complained about his father cutting him off to "hint" that it was him. Never mind it had nothing to do with that and was him just complaining that some version of the real world had suddenly caught up with him where things aren't just paid for and taken care of. And never mind Charles has a long history of engaging with a wide range of people from all over the world for decades.

I've heard people try to blame the Yorks because of Andrew when they've made it clear that Edo's biracial son is a beloved member of their family.

I wonder, I wonder, if Meghan ever intended to stay? If she'd been absolutely adored by the public and press the way Diana was.. would she and Harry have chosen to stay and she'd stifle her left leaning views and make her curtsies to the queen and Charles and so on...
Dont know. I can't help feeling that while she clearly wants public adoration, she always had the ide that she could and should be allowed to do the job as she wanted and that having "time out" to make money, perhaps return to acting at times, to return to the US when she felt like it... was always in her plans.

Who knows. I think they talked about leaving before they got married or very early on. The "two years" comment when from their wedding to the Jan 2020 announcement was only 18 months.

I think they always had the idea that they could go to Canada/NZ and live half in, half out whilst making some money and doing some duties away from the goldfish bowl. But they've just brought that gold fish bowl in on them dramatically anyway.

We know SA was being prepped for months before being crossed off the list as well.

If you had really intended to stay wouldn't you give it more time, especially with a crazy amount of changes in such a short time? Used your Canadian break to get the intense therapy you really needed and give it one more shot bearing in mind it's a marathon not a sprint? Or at least wait to work out a mutually agreeable plan with the Firm? Not suddenly launch a half cocked plan in order to try and force them into agreeing everything?

IF things had gone all her way with KP/BP acting to comment on every negative article and/or sue everyone, if they'd elevated them to the full status of William and Kate, if they'd let her speak out on whatever she wanted to, given their children an HRH, if they'd been allowed to "modernise" whatever they wanted and been hailed as saviours... If the world was sunshine and rainbows everyday etc. Then they'd have stayed. But it's not wherever you are.

 

[Claire]

Yep - there are many people argument that someone should pick up the blame regardless of who said it - or if someone even said it the way it was claimed to be said. Appease the woke culture.

Blame Philip he is old, Andrew his a pedo and no one will care, blame Anne she is probably a racist, blame Edward and Sophie no one will care. I have seen the argument about are the Kents, Gloucester's, ect part of Harry's family - can we blame them to.

Is this really where we have gotten to - is this really what they have resorted to.
All I see is two people trying to get their hands on Charles money. It is really just coming down as blackmail. Releasing bits and pieces to press, Gayle king and friends on Oprah to keep the press happy.

 

[Lee-Z]

It appears that CBS has released a statement that Oprah is not a journalist and therefore does not have to stand up to journalistic ethics. This comes after many of the facts in the interview have come to be found to be incorrect. The Daily express has also found that the editing of the coverage of the newspapers headlines has been edited as well - in order to prove Meghan's story.

All false claims made in the interview -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9356741/Harry-Meghan-inconvenient-truth.html

New: Mail Online publisher Associated Newspapers makes complaint to Viacom CBS about headlines used in Oprah's Harry/Meghan interview to show "racism" in UK press. Called edited clippings a "deliberate distortion and doctoring" with some not even from UK titles. Story to follow

https://twitter.com/x/status/1370433902981054465

Harpo statement :
Update: Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions has issued a statement (reported by Variety) defending its journalism. “Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, shared in the interview their personal story. We stand by the broadcast in its entirety.”

By stating this they are staying that the inaccuracy's are the Sussex's and the Sussex's alone and not Harpo Productions and Oprah's to check.
I do have issues with this as by given them the platform they gave them a form of trustworthiness - as people tend to believe Oprah. Also note they are not answering the convenient editing.

i'm not proud of it, but i clicked the daily mail link.

The one thing i was still convinced of was their unfair treatment by the UK gossip mags...but the Oprah interview even had to resort to media headlines from non-UK media, and edited headlines from articles to prove H&M 'truth'?
There weren't enough real UK mags headlines to prove it?

What more is there to say?

 

[Queen Ester]

Yet another program aired about the life and times of the British royal family that definitely should have had a disclaimer aired before the program started stating "The views expressed during this program do not necessarily reflect the views of this station"

One thing that does strike me though, CBS obviously has gotten quite a few messages that it was deemed that they had to make *some* kind of an announcement.

And the saga continues.....

Dear Oispi, what was the name of the program, I would like to watch it thanks

 

[Mbruno]

I think they always had the idea that they could go to Canada/NZ and live half in, half out whilst making some money and doing some duties away from the goldfish bowl. But they've just brought that gold fish bowl in on them dramatically anyway.

We know SA was being prepped for months before being crossed off the list as well.

I was re-watching the Oprah interview and Canada, New Zealand and South Africa were explicitly mentioned as possible options for the half-in, half-out solution.



As I said before, however, I can't see how that kind of arrangement would work in Harry's mind. South Africa is not even a realm anymore (since 1960 actually), and even in realms like Canada, there is no precedent of a member of the RF living there permanently as a representative of the Crown other than in an official role like Governor General, which, nowadays is an office that can in practice be occupied only by citizens of the realm.



Harry is not a citizen neither of Canada nor of New Zealand and, unless he held a Crown office in those countries, or was an accredited UK diplomat there, what kind of representation role would he have there exactly? In fact, given his immigration status, I am not even sure if he could legally remain in the country beyond the normal grace period that is extended to visitors. And there would be restrictions too on his ability to work or get a paid job.


It seems to me that, despite H&M's preaching about colonialism and dealing with its legacy, it was Harry who was confusing the Commonwealth with the old British Empire and showing a colonial mentality with respect to Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, which is out of touch with their current status as sovereign, independent countries.

 

[Queen Ester]

Is there a link where I could watch the whole interview? I have signed up to itv hub but I still can't view the videos. I live in Romania, maybe that is the reason I cannot access these videos?
Thank you.

try this, I don't know if this will work in you country
https://www.cbs.com/shows/oprah-wit...ah-with-meghan-and-harry-a-primetime-special/

 

[Emmily]

The racist accusation Archie not being a prince because of the skin is beyond ridiculous. If the BRF were racist, they would not have allowed the marriage in the first place. I am sure there was a remark about how the child would look but why not? I can give the example of Boris Becker, a white red haired person, who, like Harry had children with (partly) black women. Of course in Germany there was a lot of speculation, how the children would look because it's not a combination that happens every day. Does asking this question make a person racist? My answer is certainly not. And as it turns out, Becker's children look totally different, from mainly the mothers black genes to mainly the fathers white/red hair genes. So of course in Harry's and Meghan's case, the family will speculate about it, as will any other family I'm sure. But of course you can pull the victim/race card whenever it suits you. And another thing, if you make an accusation like that, you have to disclose name and source or you remain silent. But of course that is not the purpose, as they will milk this subject until it has run its course for money and attention.

And don't even get me started on Meghan not checking out Harry on google ...


I was stunned to see Harry complain that Daddy closed his wallet and does not take his calls anymore. Welcome to the real world, I thought. I guess once his mother's inheritance is gone and other income plans fall flat, he will become the famous hot potato. The kind of lifestyle those live who the Sussexes plan to mingle with, 13 Mio is not much, so it's clear they are out for the big money, and fast. Question is, was the interview only the beginning or the beginning of the end, because the story will be boring soon, the bad family and the bad media and the poor prince and his poor wife. I'm Team BRF, don't let the door hit you on the way out!

You nailed it. I'm with you!

 

[Erin9]

Oh yes, and Richard Kay's article debunking many of Meghan's disclosures will at least cast some doubt.



Meghan and Harry should keep in mind that the pendulum swings both ways.

Indeed. Just ask Governor Cuomo the difference between last year and this year....

Bottom line- Harry and Meghan knew they could say whatever they wanted, and Oprah wouldn’t really challenge anything. She’s a TV host. This wasn’t Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes. (who I imagine has better things to do anyway then interview these entitled whiners).

They also knew that anyone pointing out lies, misstatements, obvious twisting of events in the aftermath would not be read or heard by the majority of the audience.

 

[tommy100]

The editing of the headline articles is pretty outrageous to be honest, especially given how many stories were so racist against her apparently according to Meghan her team and stans. I wonder if DM will sue.

 

[Osipi]

Dear Oispi, what was the name of the program, I would like to watch it thanks

The program that was debated on here and elsewhere before this interview popped up that should have a disclaimer before airing stating that although it is based on real people and real events, it has been heavily fictionalized for entertainment purposes is "The Crown" that airs on Netflix. ?

 

[Alison H]

Oprah's job is to get good ratings for her show, and presumably they agreed to go on on the grounds that she'd play along with them. She did just that - she rolled her eyes, looked amazed and made "OMG" type comments over every "revelation", and never asked, for example, how come they'd turned down the title of Earl of Dumbarton if they were so keen for Archie to have a title.


I'm not very impressed with that, but I can accept it - but doctoring the pictures of media headlines to give a false impression is really stooping very low, and CBS should have checked their facts on things like who is and isn't entitled to be a prince. It's a talk show, not a documentary, but there should still be a certain amount of journalistic integrity.


And Meghan's complained because Piers Morgan said he didn't believe her. I think I'd avoid working with her at all costs. She'd probably threaten to sue you if you put too much milk in her drink, or gave her the wrong type of biscuit.