The Duke and Duchess of Sussex with Oprah I - Pre-interview, Feb-March 2021

[Leopoldine]

I just read in the NYPost that the program has been extended to two hours.

 

[Claire]

Yep - I think they have added some other opinions. Harpo and CBS are also debating to include a disclaimer in front. They are concerned about been sued. Doesn't look like everyone is convinced of the truth. But as I have been told - it really comes down to how people perceive different events.

 

[AC21091968]

I just read in the NYPost that the program has been extended to two hours.

Yep - I think they have added some other opinions. Harpo and CBS are also debating to include a disclaimer in front. They are concerned about been sued. Doesn't look like everyone is convinced of the truth. But as I have been told - it really comes down to how people perceive different events.

I initially thought CBS could have just added more ad breaks to extend an 1.5 hour interview to 2 hours for increase revenue and rating. But surely a disclaimer wouldn't last for 10 minutes let alone 30 minutes. Or is it both ad breaks and disclaimer are added?

Ad breaks could be very frustrating on commercial channels, especially when each short segments built up to a climax before heading to the ad.

 

[Claire]

oh definitely not - I expect the disclaimer to flash in the front as they usually do.
The add in - some footage of Loose Women and Piers Morgan been horrible, some YouTube and twitter footage and some interviews with the royal reporters.

Adverts might possible as well - but they apparently wanted to add examples of systematic bulling so that is what I expect. To be honest - I actually thought Harpo might have wanted to provide a balanced view and were looking for the journalist, palace and other opinions in general. looks like I asked too much

 

[Dalriada]

Having watched the two interview trailers, I get the distinct impression that the interview is going to be a very exciting and watchable “whingefest” like no other that we have seen before. I imagine the production work and suggested related video clip editing has been quite intense to create a perfect tailor-made tv spectacular! A splendidly entertaining vehicle for their narrative.

 

[Alison H]

It's interesting to hear the famous Japanese author Kazuo Ishigoro say today that he worries that young authors are frightened to write anything for fear that it'll be taken the wrong way and spark off a Twitter storm, and that they'll be abused or "cancelled". All sorts of things go on - judges on Strictly Come Dancing have had death threats from fans upset that their faves have been voted off, and the latest is that a BBC sports reporter's been abused on social media because people felt that her interview after the England v Wales Six Nations match was biased. After Caroline Flack sadly took her own life, there were calls for people to stop abusing famous people on social media, but, unfortunately they didn't seem to work. So I think that a lot of people can genuinely claim to have been abused on social media, and maybe also in the press ... but I get the impression that Harry and Meghan are going to make out that it's some sort of personal vendetta against them, rather than a very unpleasant facet of modern life.


There were reports that extra bits had been filmed after their patronages were removed, so maybe the programme's been lengthened just to add those bits in without removing what'd already been done.

 

[AC21091968]

Another possible reason of re-shooting or adding new clips and even putting in disclaimer is to consider Prince Philip's admission to hospital. I think there could be well wishes and compliments from Harry & Meghan, as a way to alleviate the allege/supposed tension with the Royal Family.

 

[Claire]

It's interesting to hear the famous Japanese author Kazuo Ishigoro say today that he worries that young authors are frightened to write anything for fear that it'll be taken the wrong way and spark off a Twitter storm, and that they'll be abused or "cancelled". All sorts of things go on - judges on Strictly Come Dancing have had death threats from fans upset that their faves have been voted off, and the latest is that a BBC sports reporter's been abused on social media because people felt that her interview after the England v Wales Six Nations match was biased. After Caroline Flack sadly took her own life, there were calls for people to stop abusing famous people on social media, but, unfortunately they didn't seem to work. So I think that a lot of people can genuinely claim to have been abused on social media, and maybe also in the press ... but I get the impression that Harry and Meghan are going to make out that it's some sort of personal vendetta against them, rather than a very unpleasant facet of modern life.

.

I recently met wonderful man that is researching how social media and culture has affected mob thinking. Essentially humans think better when they are in a group of less then 10 of various ideas and competition. When it is increased to 25 people tend to get in line with prevailing thought. When it is more then 100 or tens of thousands - people became aggressive, horrid and loose common sense. And you end up with people posting death threats, hatred and believing conspiracy theories. People are interesting animals.

 

[AC21091968]

Chris Ship was told that the interview is not filmed at Harry & Meghan's nor Oprah's mansion, but at another Montecito home.

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
Just to add, I’m told this interview was NOT filmed at Harry and Meghan’s Montecito home (nor at Oprah’s). But at another location in nearby Santa Barbara, California [Movie camera]
8:19 PM · Mar 1, 2021·Twitter for iPhone​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1366317263649914883

 

[Roderick]

What I fail to understand is the overlying impression I sense from both Harry and Meghan that they've emerged from some sort of terrible ordeal. If they have, it's completely escaped me as to what it was?

 

[Mbruno]

They're definitely going to say negative things about the royal family. Now all that is left is how the Queen and Prince Charles will respond.

I think they will just repeat their now well-known version of the story, i.e. that Meghan was viciously attacked by the UK press, was subject to racial and class discrimination, and was near a nervous breakdown. Harry then had to take his wife and son out of the country to protect them from harm and safeguard their mental health. They might also say that the RF and the Palace suits were "unsupportive" in this process and tried to hold the Sussexes back in their projects and "star power", but I don't think they will directly point fingers.


Again, none of the above is new for royal watchers and people who have been following this process for a while. They will just be just telling (again) their version of the story to a broader American audience who may hearing about it for the first time.

 

[RoyalNight]

Trailers are cringingly dramatic. I didn't realize this kind of montage was still 'in'.
I'm surprised (or maybe I'm really not) that H&M agreed to this dramatic tone. Against my better judgment I thought that this time they won't use woe is me narrative.

 

[Osipi]

On CNN's website, I happened across this article with the header "Prince Harry compares 'unbelievably tough' royal split to Diana's experience in Oprah interview." Now, more than ever, I'm sure I'm not going to be sitting on the edge of my seat for this interview.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/01/entertainment/harry-meghan-oprah-promo-scli-intl-gbr/index.html

 

[Claire]

It is very odd that they are going down the Diana was bullied route, it is the same reason why people view them as disingenuous.
1. Diana manipulated the press and portrayed herself as a victim. How was was inflated for her cause and how much was the truth we will never know and people know that.
2. In today social any rich influential figure attempting to play the victim will be laughed at and told to grow up. It just doesnt work anymore.
3. Shows up duality of personally - They are all about strong personality and then moan about been voiced less and controlled. There narrative and actions just dont tie up - now and a year ago.

On another note - I see that several publication have asked for questions that you would really have liked Oprah to ask the Sussex''s - I would have like to open a forum, but I am worried that it might must be closed by the moderators as soon as it is open. Any takers?

 

[RandyDrx]

I don't think this interview would be warmly welcomed by the average American who doesn't care or read about the royals, especially in the current pandemic. Imagine living in a palatial home while wearing thousands of dollars worth of clothes, visiting other countries with a private jet, having royal titles, having their basic needs taken care of, having a massive platform and STILL act like their lives are so hard done by, there are people who went through far worse situations than these two who complained less.

 

[Empress Merel]

I actually laughed at the first look. Such a dramatic montage. Also, ironic that he speaks about afraid of history repeating itself, while their entire facial expressions scream that Diana exposé interview.

 

[kathia_sophia]

What a dramatic and suspenseful trailer. Was that really needed? To increase the viewership, I suppose. Well, it certainly grabbed my attention, not in a good way, but it did. So purpose accomplished...

 

[Princess Duchess]

For royal watchers, this interview won’t say anything new. It’ll be a repeat of the “the press were hard on us” and “there was a lack of support” but that’s it. There won’t be anything “shocking” that comes out of it.

It’s also not going to drastically change minds if that’s what they (H&M) were hoping.

 

[Alison H]

I don't think this interview would be warmly welcomed by the average American who doesn't care or read about the royals, especially in the current pandemic. Imagine living in a palatial home while wearing thousands of dollars worth of clothes, visiting other countries with a private jet, having royal titles, having their basic needs taken care of, having a massive platform and STILL act like their lives are so hard done by, there are people who went through far worse situations than these two who complained less.

That's pretty much been the reaction here as well.

They got a very negative response to their Africa interview for that reason, so it's quite surprising that they haven't changed tack.


I fully appreciate that the timing wasn't deliberate and that the interview was filmed before Prince Philip's illness, but the fact that this is going on whilst Harry's 99-year-old grandfather is ill in hospital doesn't exactly look great, either.

 

[Mbruno]

I really hope that he has long come to terms with that - it says more about him then his father if he does.

It is very odd that they are going down the Diana was bullied route, it is the same reason why people view them as disingenuous.
1. Diana manipulated the press and portrayed herself as a victim. How was was inflated for her cause and how much was the truth we will never know and people know that.
2. In today social any rich influential figure attempting to play the victim will be laughed at and told to grow up. It just doesnt work anymore.
3. Shows up duality of personally - They are all about strong personality and then moan about been voiced less and controlled. There narrative and actions just dont tie up - now and a year ago.?

They will clearly draw a parallel between their situation and Diana's (even though the two situations are actually dissimilar) because

1. Harry perhaps genuinely believes in his mind that "history is repeating itself", and/or
2. Pragmatically, especially for Meghan, it is easier to sell their version to the American public that way, as many Americans are at least vaguely familiar with Diana's story. Season 4 of The Crown for example just aired and won several Golden Globe awards; many Americans will take it as factual truth and it is not difficult then to build a narrative that extrapolates the events of 30+ years ago to H&M's present situation.

 

[ACO]

That's pretty much been the reaction here as well.

They got a very negative response to their Africa interview for that reason, so it's quite surprising that they haven't changed tack.


I fully appreciate that the timing wasn't deliberate and that the interview was filmed before Prince Philip's illness, but the fact that this is going on whilst Harry's 99-year-old grandfather is ill in hospital doesn't exactly look great, either.

They can't help Philip as most of this happened before his illness. But to be fair literally his entire family are carrying on with their lives, so fair enough for the Sussexes to as well.

As for the reaction to the Africa documentary -- I agree that in the UK there was a sense it was not received well but outside I have to say I saw overwhelming sympathy for her. Talk shows here were very much in support. #WeLoveYouMeghan trended for hours with high profile people including the current Vice President tweeting support to her.

So we really have no idea how this interview will land with people. Time will tell with that but I suspect those who dislike them will continue and those who support them will as well. It is those in between that they will have to reach.

It is 2 hours. All we have seen are two 30 second clips.

 

[carlota]

They're definitely going to say negative things about the royal family. Now all that is left is how the Queen and Prince Charles will respond.

it is inevitable that they will show some negativity towards the RF and/or palace officials - at least to say that they weren't supported. whatever they do, i hope for their own good that they do it in a classy, dignified way.

Honestly I am a little surprised by Meghan's choice of eye makeup and clothing color. IMHO it's a little too close to Diana's heavier black eyeliner and her clothing color. Typically I've noticed that Meghan doesn't go for very heavy eyeliner.

indeed, very heavy make up chosen by meghan. her face looks very full also. not sure what it can be but not sure it is just the make up?! in any case, i seem to prefer her with a more natural make up choice.

 

[Denville]

it is inevitable that they will show some negativity towards the RF and/or palace officials - at least to say that they weren't supported. whatever they do, i hope for their own good that they do it in a classy, dignified way.



indeed, very heavy make up chosen by meghan. her face looks very full also. not sure what it can be but not sure it is just the make up?! in any case, i seem to prefer her with a more natural make up choice.

She's pregnant, so I suppose that's why her face is full....

 

[Claricecolin]

My questions have always been and remains this: if the media, palace officials and POSSIBLY some family members have done nothing wrong why are people acting like they are worried about what might be said in the interview? Why does the RF accept/tolerate being the punching bag of the media? Why is it the women who marry in are attacked (Catherine,Sophie,Meghan, etc) and not the men?

 

[Prinsara]

Why is it the women who marry in are attacked (Catherine,Sophie,Meghan, etc) and not the men?

1) Women are easier targets and usually generate more interest.
2) The men have never been expected to subsume themselves to the institution the way the women have, see Snowdon and Tim Laurence still having careers, with the exception of Philip, and that was back in the age of deference and yet still generated divorce rumors.

Basically, double standards.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

My questions have always been and remains this: if the media, palace officials and POSSIBLY some family members have done nothing wrong why are people acting like they are worried about what might be said in the interview? Why does the RF accept/tolerate being the punching bag of the media? Why is it the women who marry in are attacked (Catherine,Sophie,Meghan, etc) and not the men?

Respectfully, I think you are trying to box into black-and-white terms what is not at all black and white. "Done nothing wrong" in whose eyes? You can act entirely properly in your own eyes, and in theory even in objective terms, and other people can still think you acted wrongly and criticize your actions- fairly or unfairly.

Edit: We are going off topic.

 

[ACO]

My questions have always been and remains this: if the media, palace officials and POSSIBLY some family members have done nothing wrong why are people acting like they are worried about what might be said in the interview? Why does the RF accept/tolerate being the punching bag of the media? Why is it the women who marry in are attacked (Catherine,Sophie,Meghan, etc) and not the men?

Well no one is perfect. I am sure things have been said and done on all sides that wasn't the best. That doesn't mean one expects dirty laundry to be shared and one would hope it stays between them. Not that I claim to know what happened or could be said. Just saying in general as people, that is what we expect.

As for why women are mostly attacked? It is just how sexist the world is. Nothing has changed nor will change anytime soon. Strong woman intimate people.

 

[Mbruno]

My questions have always been and remains this: if the media, palace officials and POSSIBLY some family members have done nothing wrong why are people acting like they are worried about what might be said in the interview? Why does the RF accept/tolerate being the punching bag of the media? Why is it the women who marry in are attacked (Catherine,Sophie,Meghan, etc) and not the men?

Philip was attacked when he married Elizabeth, not only by the press, but, more significantly, by the British establishment. And so was Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's consort.


I guess other men who marry into the RF are not equally attacked mostly because, unlike the women who marry into the Family, they don't have an official public role, i.e. they are not "working royals" so to speak and have kept their own private careers. In the patrilineal concept of family, which is still the norm in the UK considering British naming conventions for children, men don't actually marry into their wives' families; instead, it is the other way around. The only exceptions really are the husbands of the Queen regnant or of the Crown Princess.

I admit, however, that there is also an element of sexism in play. Women are easier targets generally.

 

[Princess Duchess]

My questions have always been and remains this: if the media, palace officials and POSSIBLY some family members have done nothing wrong why are people acting like they are worried about what might be said in the interview? Why does the RF accept/tolerate being the punching bag of the media? Why is it the women who marry in are attacked (Catherine,Sophie,Meghan, etc) and not the men?

As people have said above, I’m sure things have been said on both sides that they’re not proud of. And they would want that to stay private.

And because it’s sexism. Plain and simple. While some of the men did face a hard time amongst the family at the very minimum, the men in general certainly get an easier ride.

 

[AC21091968]

Apparently ITV has brought the Oprah interview for £1million in which it will be broadcast on the ITV1 8pm at Monday 8th March. This comes ITV have beaten Sky after talks with ViacomCBS. The BBC of course had decline to broadcast it. ITV's website has not released a blurb/introduction yet. Disclaimer: Please ignore the sensational headlines and slant reporting.

Fury at ITV for 'paying £1MILLION' to air 'grossly insensitive' Oprah interview with Harry and Meghan while Prince Philip, 99, battles heart condition in hospital - with tell-all chat due for broadcast at 8pm on Monday

• Prince Harry and his pregnant wife Meghan Markle joined Oprah for CBS interview airing on CBS on March 7
• Royals are warned to 'hide behind the sofa' when it is broadcast at 8pm US time, and around 1am UK time
• ITV1 will show Oprah with Meghan and Harry: A Primetime Special at 8pm UK time on Monday March 8
• Show extended from 90 minutes to 2 hours - allowing broadcasters to rake in £140,000 per 30 second ad
• Harry says that he took family to LA because of his mother's ordeal and feared 'history repeating itself'
• Meghan does not speak in the 30-second trailer but Oprah hints that ex-actress uses the word 'unsurvivable'
• Billionaire interviewer also confirms no topic was 'off limits' and asked Meghan if she was 'silenced' by palace
• Sussexes not believed to be being paid for Oprah show, but is part of building a $1bn US brand, experts say

ITV has today been branded 'deplorable' after it bought up the Duke and Duchess and Sussex's 'grossly insensitive' two-hour interview with Oprah Winfrey for £1million despite warnings its broadcast could detonate a 'diplomatic bomb' if the Duke of Edinburgh's health deteriorates, it was revealed today.

Oprah with Meghan and Harry: A Primetime Special will be shown in the UK at 8pm on Monday, March 8, around 24 hours after it is first shown in the US on Sunday night.

The deal is said to have cost ITV around £1million, having beaten Sky to the rights after talks with ViacomCBS were completed yesterday. It was a largely open field in the UK after the BBC declined to broadcast it.

The sit-down, which Oprah promises will be 'shocking', has been extended by half an hour, from 90 minutes to two hours, to allow CBS to rake in more money from advertising - a 30-second slot is reported to be costing $200,000, around £144,000.

ITV will also set to try to cash in on the deal by charging advertisers similar amounts, giving them up to 24 minutes of advertising time during the two-hour programme. But some experts have questioned whether businesses will now want to be advertise during the toxic show shown as Philip battles ill-health in hospital.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ah-Winfrey-interview-Harry-Meghan-Monday.html