The Duke & Duchess of Sussex with Oprah II - Interview, March 7th-9th 2021

[Marengo]

From the headlines and the evaluation here I did not find the interview all that shocking.

The remarks about the tabloids should not be surprising to anybody, this is mostly well-known.

I think they have a point about the security. Although many members do not agree with me, I thought it irresponsible to take the security away. Harry needs security due to his birth, wherther he is in the UK, in Canada or on the moon. He did not chose to be born into this family. For now his son will be much better known that many of the Queen's grandchildren, which brings much more security risks to the table too.

As for Charles and William being trapped: I don't see why this is harmful for their reputation. If anything it will make people sympathise with them more. I don't think it is a surprise to anybody that the royals live in a golden cage and that this can be difficult at times.

I found the wish to carve out a life of their own understandable. I never saw an issue in them actually stepping down as senior royals and finding a job & still doing some events on the side. But I can see why the preferred carreer path in the public eye would be a problem for the palace. It would set up a rival court that could do exactly as they pleased, no matter the backlash it would bring in the UK. If they would have chosen to pursue a carreer as a civil servant, an architect or a banker I don't think we would have seen an escalation as we have seen now.

Titles: seems they have made a bit of a mess out of this part. But for outsiders it is an obvious question and rightly or wrongly many were wondering about it at the time of Archie's birth.

Nice that they revealed the gender of their child to us!

In general:

I don't think this interview is as damaging as it could have been. Compared to the Diana interviews it was rather mild.

Some issues seemed to lack context. Motivations and details that might explain why the palace reacted the way it did were often left out - it could be that the duke and duchess are not aware of them. The part where Charles is not taking telephone calls from Harry will certainly have a bigger backstory to it than was given in the interview for example.

I can't see the pair of them returning to anything but the bare essensials in the UK in the near future. I imagine relatives & courtiers would be mistrustful that anything they do or say would immidiately be reported to the press. And of course the duke and duchess may have the same fear, that 'sources in the palace' will leak new negative stories about them. Trust comes on foot and goes away on horse, so that will obviously take time to re-build, if it is possible at all.

I hope that at least the Duke and Duchess can move on from this and that they will not fall into the same trap as Edward VIII did: spending decades obsessing over his family while getting increasingly bitter. What is done is done and it would be best for everybody to move forward.

 

[Nico]

All a can say is : clever girl
C L E V ER GIRL

She thinks she's the smartest of the bunch is she ? I don't blame her, she's quite impressive, quite.

I don't blame people who are ambitious, who want to be someone. I'm positive she's the kind of woman who has, from an early age, decided she wanted to be famous, world famous, at any cost. Her enter into the BRF could have been the pinacle of her life, except she figured out quite early , because she's smart, that it would be far more profitable to be out than in.

And boy, last night didn't disapoint on that level.

Pass the smoky eyes , the "look-at-me-i'm-sad-but-combative" Diana 1995 style, Meghan Markle gave the performance of her life. I found her bitter, bitter because she found at Court some people who dared resist to her. She expected a front seat, and the pecking order just gave her a foldable chair. She was not pleased.

I give her the hability to feel the air, to see the oportunity when it happens. Nowadays in this oh-so-binary social medias dictated world, in this climate of defiance toward institutions , toward the established order, especially during the Pandemic, to play The Victim (not a victim mind you, but the somewhat mothership oh all the victims of the Establishment , because Meghan didn't think small) was of course her golden ticket she waited for so long. Screaming "Racism" was of course the insurance of a Twitter trending asap.

I'll pass of her astonishing naivety about what to expect in the BRF, who was who. It was bordeline "The Queen from where ?". C'mon, who can believe that ? The same about the allegedly Suicide thoughts and the lack of help for that matter. Harry sought the help from professionals for years, he admitted it. I find rather odd that his own wife didn't manage to find a decent psy around. It was one of the limit of her performance. Like the unfamous Africa interview, Meghan overdid it. Well she's not Meryl Streep.

So we passed from "They are all welcoming", "Catherine is wonderful", 'she found the family she never had" etc to "they are all mean, mean mean and oh, racists too" like in 2 years time. Even for the Windsors it's impressive. Something is fishy, and i don't talk about the rivers at Balmoral.

And Harry, or i can say poor Harry. The real victim here. Harry was never very bright, it's a fact, but he's a good man with a good heart. And we all know what happens to weak, nice men, with titles with that : a more Formidable wife suddently appears, somewhat manage to calm your anxieties, tells you that the problem is them, not you :'I was trapped until I met Meg, I just didn't know it'. Well Harry escaped from a prison to go directly to another one : hers. Because, let's face it, the interview was all about her , her , her. Reminds me of the scenario from 'The Adams family values". Meghan sure knows her classics.

Now i'm just calmly waiting for the counterfire because the Sussexes are expendable, they have always been and they didn't fully understand that. Poor Meg, still on the foldable chair after all.

It's a pity, and its just the beginning of the ride.

(all IMO of course, to spare me the usual attacks from you-know-who-you-are)

 

[Lady Chiara]

I didn't see the interview but it sounded bad, on so many ways.
A lot of heavy things were said that I have not the knowledge to comment on so I will not but it is surely not a good look for anyone.
The thing about the BRF being terrified by press make me laugh because IMHO anyone who has a tiny bit of visibility and/or power is terrified by the press. The press and social media can make or destroy a reputation in a matter of hours. Royals, politicians, actors, business people, sport people, they all try their best to keep on the press good side.
Meghan was an actress quite known (not super known but not the one that works in your local tv station) so she probably had a publicist that was trying to use the media for her and was aware of the power of press way before Harry.
For the title matter, I am confused especially because Harry apparently felt trapped within the institution and yet they wanted their son to have the title that represent the Institution. In all the other RFs but also in the BRF (see Zara and Peter or James and Louise) they tend to give a lot less people titles, both for a matter of tax payers money and a matter of allowing people that won't have the throne to live a more normal life so I really don't understand their thoughts process. Also because there is no correlation between the HRH and receiving RPO.
This sounds like they don't understand the difference between a heir and a spare.

 

[Claire]

Personally I feel this is deflection - the whole interview is a bad example of deflection.

When Harry and Meghan left the said a number of things that people have always wondered about - like they left for Meghan and Archie's safety, or it was due to the racism of the British press.
Okay - so now they have an Oprah interview and it is the narrative is about mental health, just to be to clear when you speak about someone's mental health in context it is not seen as safety it is seen as well being.
The racism is because Meghan accused the firm of been racist so now she has to come up with the goods - so she accuses an unknown person. She knows that half the world thing all old British people are racist so what harm.
She didn't make the accusation about the British been institutionally racist as that didn't go down well in her polling. It should be remembered that Meghan and Harry do want to do some charity work in the UK still - and have recently setup an Archewell London Office for you to do donate.

I don't think Sunshine Sachs is going to last the month. For a interview that was planned months ago that they could edit review revise everything - this is quiet amateurish . Lets take away the royal aspect - if this was a Democract who left the party who wanted to tell his truth. How would you view it? If this was a senior exec at Disney ?

 

[poppy7]

I haven't seen it yet but context is everything. Is it not normal to talk about what a child may look like.

Zadie Smith identifies as black. Jamaican mother and white British father, and she married a white Irish man. She herself has talked about her children being white. And how shocking that was to her when they were born and that she presumed her children would look like her. How they look like their father from that point of view and how he is out with them no one questions he is their parents but they can think she is a nanny. How it gave her empathy for her own parents experience. I think context is everything in this conversation and we weren't given any

 

[yukari]

You can have as many religious ceremonies as you like. The legalities of the ceremony, I.e. the signing of the marriage contract can only be signed once. So theoretically, they could have been married 2 days before, where only the non-legal aspects were conducted on the 19th May

Remember- we don't see the signing of the register, that happens away from the cameras

Nope. As Meghan said: "The ceremony was "just the two of us in our back yard with the Archbishop of Canterbury."

Now this:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/f...rriage-and-civil-partnership/getting-married/

You can get married by a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.

In both cases, the following legal requirements must be met:

• the marriage must be conducted by a person or in the presence of a person authorised to register marriages in the district
  
• the marriage must be entered in the marriage register and signed by both parties, two witnesses, the person who conducted the ceremony and, if that person is not authorised to register marriages, the person who is registering the marriage.

And

A marriage can take place in:

• a Register Office
• premises approved by the local authority such as a hotel
• a church of the Church of England, Church in Wales
• a synagogue or any other private place if both partners are Jewish
• a Meeting House if one or both partners are either members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) or are associated with the Society by attending meetings
• any registered religious building (England and Wales only)
• the home of one of the partners if the partner is housebound or detained, for example, in prison
• a place where one partner is seriously ill and not expected to recover, for example, in hospital
• a licensed naval, military or air force chapel

Thus, their marriage in their back yard is not legal. It's UK, not Vegas.

I'm back, briefly.

(...)

The above line is a lie. Archie would have been styled in the same way as his second cousin James, Viscount Severn. He would not have been titled in the same as William's children, and that is down to their position in line for the throne. I think she understands that, but would much rather turn the whole saga in a "The Royal Family is racist and that's why we left". I hear Oprah didn't ask a single question about Meghan's family.....I wonder why.

Truly, if any of the things that have been mentioned in that interview occurred, why marry in? Why did they stay for as long as they did when they (and the world) could have been much happier and settled had they left before the wedding. I think deep down we all know it was never the family who had the problem, it was Meghan and Henry.

It is such a shame the royal family can't respond to these allegations. But just like those said by Diana this interview will fade into memory, and the monarchy will move on.

This!!
Considering the majority of unsavoury reportings about her were coming/caused by her family (father and sister), I wonder why there's no "my truth" about her family saga.

Like Osipi above, I'm hoping that this would be mainly about Archewell and promoting their future plan. They have the stage and audience, what a waste of opportunity.

 

[evolvingdoors]

OH MY! She said there were conversations about how "Dark Archie" would be. Oprah asked for a name. She said "I think that would be very damaging to them".

Has to be the Queen, Charles or William right?

Doubt it is any of the three. the fact she is refusing to name is kind of shitty! either name the person or don't bring it up!

I wonder if it was brought up not as a shade, but as a concern for the child and how best the family would be able to support him if he does end up darker (which is an lol, given he has a white dad and a very light skin biracial mother).

 

[poppy7]

I hope that at least the Duke and Duchess can move on from this and that they will not fall into the same trap as Edward VIII did: spending decades obsessing over his family while getting increasingly bitter. What is done is done and it would be best for everybody to move forward.

I think that is it. Best they just get on with their life.

As for getting help. Could she not have gone to see someone. Got a therapist. Even many times a week. I dont here she couldn't get help it's that she wanted to 'go somewhere' but there is other help.

My own mother suffers from depression and has had horrendous episodes of it my entire life. She has told me now I'm an adult, she thought of ending it all. With encouragement from all of us she has gotten therapy and continues to take medication. I mean going to rehab was not an option for her.

Kate own brother has talked about his therapy and how Kate supported him. Doesn't ring true really. I get they may have said no to a residential placement...but that wasnt the only help available.

 

[star84]

Doubt it is any of the three. the fact she is refusing to name is kind of shitty! either name the person or don't bring it up!

I wonder if it was brought up not as a shade, but as a concern for the child and how best the family would be able to support him if he does end up darker (which is an lol, given he has a white dad and a very light skin biracial mother).

It was very strange to me that they had different stories about the context / when it happened. Harry talked about it happening pre-marriage and said it was one conversation he had, while Meghan said it happened while she was pregnant and happened with multiple people.

 

[Nico]

In the process i salute, because i'm a naughty boy, the members on this forum who said they "will eat their hat" if something remotely against the BRF had to come out from this interview because, you knwow, the Stellar Susssexes, obviously, were too busy with their amaaaaazing charitable work.

I can bring the sauce ...

 

[Mbruno]

I suppose it all depends on the context? Why the remark was made at all.

From the headlines and the evaluation here I did not find the interview all that shocking.

The remarks about the tabloids should not be surprising to anybody, this is mostly well-known.

I think they have a point about the security. Although many members do not agree with me, I thought it irresponsible to take the security away. Harry needs security due to his birth, wherther he is in the UK, in Canada or on the moon. He did not chose to be born into this family. For now his son will be much better known that many of the Queen's grandchildren, which brings much more security risks to the table too.

As for Charles and William being trapped: I don't see why this is harmful for their reputation. If anything it will make people sympathise with them more. I don't think it is a surprise to anybody that the royals live in a golden cage and that this can be difficult at times.
.

It seems that we get a lot of this "sad royals" narrative (or "being trapped") especially from the British royals. True, and you probably know better than I do, there were also rumors than Willem-Alexander, Philippe or Frederik were once unhappy (maybe felt trapped?) in their roles, but, now, it seems that they are all very happily married and have very happy children (W-A and Philippe are even kings themselves).


Mutatis mutandis, I also see Charles and Camilla happily married and William and Kate having a well-balanced family life. Are they in some kind of trap that would make us feel sorry for them as Harry said ? I don't know them as well as Harry presumably does, but on the surface it doesn't look that way. But, even if it were true, contrary to what their public images suggest, I don't think Harry should be saying that openly on international TV and violating their trust on private family matters. He is free to speak about himself and his immediate family and how he feels, but do not drag your father and your brother into that narrative without their consent.


On the issue of security, I am also sure there are Forum members here who are far more knowledgeable than I am on the existing security arrangements for members of the RF , both in the UK and in Canada, and the limitations, not only financial, but possibly legal/statutory on those arrangements. I will let them comment then. I would just say that Harry should know those rules and limitations, not least by looking at other members of the Family, and that shouldn't have come as a surprise to him.


Personally, I think that Harry put a lot of emphasis on the security issue to justify his subsquent claim that the Netflix/Spotify deals were never planned a priori, but he had been cut off financially and needed money to pay for security. Oprah was obviously coordinating with them even she intentionally asked the question to allow them to defend themselves from the accusation that they were "money-grabbing royals".

 

[Darius1]

This whole charade is absolutely beyond the pale. Their titles need to be removed or renounced quick smart. I am undecided whether this couple is naively stupid, or pathologically narcissistic. Either way they need to invest the money they have earned from this interview in some help fast. Absolutely disgusting and disrespectful behaviour.

 

[Marengo]

It seems that we get a lot of this "sad royals" narrative (or "being trapped") especially from the British royals. True, and you probably know better than I do, there were rumors than Willem-Alexander, Philippe or Frederik were once unhappy (maybe felt trapped?) in their roles, but, now, it seems that they are all very happily married and have very happy children (W-A and Philippe are even kings themselves).


Mutatis mutandis, I also see Charles and Camilla happily married and William and Kate having a well-balanced family life. Are they in some kind of trap that would make us feel sorry for them as Harry said ? I don't know them as well as Harry presumably does, but on the surface it doesn't look that way. But, even if it were true, contrary to what their public images suggest, I don't think Harry should be commenting that openly on international TV and violating their trust on private family matters. He is free to speak about himself and his immediate family and how he feels, but do not drag his father and his brother into that narrative without their consent.

Oh yes, I am used to royals complaining about their fate. In my own country Queen Beatrix and Prince Claus always emphasized how difficult it was. People thought that Prince Claus' depression was caused by his role. Queen Juliana mentioned in her enthronement speech that it was a heavy task that "nobody who would give it a good thought would want". Queen Wilhelmina wrote about 'the golden cage' in her autobiography. WA had problems accepting his fate and it was clear that the late Prince Friso thought the whole thing a farce. We always got the impression they were sacrifising themselves and would have preferred to do something else. They only stopped doing so in the 2000s, which must have been a consious decision.

So in that light I do not find Harry's comments surprising at all, esp. as being a senior British royal will expose you to a media scrutiny -deserved or not- that is far worse than elsewhere. If he should have said this on television is a matter that people will disagree on obviously. But I can not see much harm in it.

 

[Alison H]

On the issue of security, I am also sure there are members here who are far more knowledgeable than I am on the existing security arrangements for members of the RF , both in the UK and in Canada, and the limitations, not only financial, but possibly legal/statutory on those arrangements. I will let them comment then. I would just say that Harry should know those rules and limitations, not least by looking at other members of the Family, and that shouldn't have come as a surprise to him.

I think most people have felt trapped at some point, by the pressure of jobs, worrying about paying bills, looking after children, caring for elderly relatives, etc etc, and it's very stressful. I've been treated for depression and anxiety myself. OK, if you're born royal then your choices are limited, but, on the other hand, most people haven't got the option of packing it all in and moving to a mansion in California. And I think everyone's well aware that Royals may feel trapped. There were rumours that Princess Charlene had tried to run away before her wedding.

As has been pointed out, Kate's brother has been treated for depression. And Prince Philip's mother was subjected to some quite horrific treatment for mental health issues.

Regarding security, I don't think the Royal Family can win on this. There was a lot of complaining in the media a few years ago over security being provided for the York princesses. It was decided that most Royals should pay for their own security. That's nothing personal against either Harry or Archie. Yes, you can argue that Harry's at risk, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and, when any line is drawn, there will always be someone who just misses out and feels hard done by.

 

[Kataryn]

On Meghan referring to Sarah Ferguson as "Fergie", maybe that was another thing she did not research about Harry's relations and thought they were talking about the singer, the former member of the Black Eyed Peas...

I rather think the "former friend of Harry's mum" who becaem a confidante was Fergie. And she helped Meghan with trying to come to terms with the adversary she was shown by some members of the staff. Like most of Sarah's projects (apart from her daughters) this one didn't work out as well.

 

[AC21091968]

CBS This Morning has tweeted out that Oprah Winfrey will be joining the program on Monday 7-9am. There will be never-seen-before clips from the interview. Is this when the footage of the Sussexes' family will be shown? Or is it just only unseen clips from the interview?

CBS This Morning @CBSThisMorning
TOMORROW: @Oprah Winfrey will join us live with never-before-seen clips from her interview with Duchess of Sussex, Meghan & Prince Harry.
Watch @CBS Monday 7-9 a.m. #OprahMeghanHarry
2:01 PM · Mar 8, 2021·Sprinklr​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368758624177229828

 

[MARG]

Oprah is a pretty fly lady. She befriended Meghan's mother to get the inside track and she had an agenda. She was set on Archie not having a title because he is bi-racial. Meghan was on the right track with the King George V and VI but the reason for LP's is pretty arcane. I would not have but it top of an American spouse's "must know and understand" but in all truth, she did try to explain but Ms Winfey wasn'tinterested.. British and Commonwealth fans understand the succession.

I think the protection issue for Archie was not about status but rather safety. While Meghan was pregnant a lot of white supremacists were very vocal online calling Harry a "race traitor" and when Archie was born the declared he had polluted the royal line and all three should be disposed of. That would also play into not letting her have a spur of the moment anything outside the palace.

I understand Meghan's fears when she was on her own which is why I believe HM gave them Fragmore Cottage within private land and with estate security. But, their temporary solution offended the media and they accused them of abandoning KP and the Cambridges. Then came the drone filming through the windows.

But by then the media started the whole hate on money spent on them and by them and talking about them living at Windsor as though it was Balmoral. What a ghastly series of highs and lows, a rollercoaster no less.

I believe Harry tried to tell her about how things would be but I think he both accepted some really weird (to anyone not royal) behaviors as normal and didn't even mention them and everyone underestimated the effect meghan's arrival would have, both good or bad.

The issue about colour is a hard one but Elizabeth and Philip have spent a lifetime working with the Commonwealth and I don't think they are closet racists. But, we don't know who the they are and both the royals and senior audes get referred to as The Firm.

I just think that there is so much miscommunication, tender feelings hurt I cant believe the UK and US are not preoccupied with Covid-19 instead of tearing g the BRF apart.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I haven't seen the interview but my thoughts are that I don't see any way back for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after this in royal circles and the Prince of Wales has come off rather badly from what I'm hearing.

 

[UglyAmerican]

The Sussexes themselves publicly said they chose for Archie not to have a title, and explained that it was because they wanted him to grow up as normally as possible. Were they lying? Are we supposed to believe that the Firm was holding them hostage and threatening them with something awful if they didn’t say those things in press releases?

Of course Archie wouldn’t get security. The decision was made many years ago to take it away from Beatrice and Eugenie, who are in the same hierarchical position as Archie, as part of “slimming down” the monarchy in response to criticism over expenses. They’ve been doing without it this whole time, paying for it themselves in situations where they feel it’s needed. There’s no way Harry wasn’t aware of that. That’s probably also why Archie couldn’t have the title Prince - making Beatrice and Eugenie princesses, raising them to be full-time royals, then cutting them loose when they were no longer needed certainly didn’t do them any favors. I think that’s an example of the institution changing to suit the times and to be more fair to its minor members. Predictably, H&M don’t see it that way - apparently positive change doesn’t count as such unless it benefits them personally.

I feel like they’re deliberately trying to mislead people about the “concerns” raised over Archie’s skin color, which most certainly was not the reason he has neither a title nor security. It’s normal to speculate about what children will look like, and I don’t think speculating about skin tone must automatically be any worse than speculating about hair or eye color. How many on this board have said “I hope he has red hair”? I think it’s likely that the (admittedly out-of-touch) family members treated that subject the same way they would other physical traits, without realizing how that would be perceived by woke Meghan and increasingly-woke Harry. Sure, it’s possible it was worse than that, but if Meghan and Harry aren’t willing to say so, I don’t see any reason to assume it. It was apparent when they married that any children they had might not look white. Any objections to that would have raised at that point, and it sounds like none were.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I'm glad I didn't watch this- it sounds awful. I don't see how they can be allowed to represent the royal family in any capacity ( including titles and line of succession ) after this

 

[Mbruno]

I haven't seen the interview but my thoughts are that I don't see any way back for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after this in royal circles and the Prince of Wales has come off rather badly from what I'm hearing.

I may be wrong, but I didn't see many direct personal attacks on the Family. Harry repeated that he and William are "in different places" or something like that, but he didn't badmouth the Duke of Cambridge. Harry made it clear though that he and Charles are estranged, and that he was somehow disappointed because, I think, he thought Charles would have understood better what he was going through. He also mentioned Charles stopped taking his calls at some point, but that he is working to heal the relationship. That surprised me because I assumed he was still closer to Charles than to William. Much to my surprise too, Harry also made a big deal of being cut off financially and losing official security.


The part where the Family came out badly was mainly the race issue, especially them not standing up to the tabloids and the alleged comment on Archie's skin color. Meghan didn't hear the comment herself though; if I understood it correctly, Harry told it to her and, when he was asked about it, he didn't deny it, but said he would not elaborate. The timing of the alleged comment was also different, if I remember it correctly, in Meghan's and Harry's versions.

 

[lirienn]

They contradicted themselves so many times.
The majority thought it wouldn't be that bad. Yet it is that bad and the Royals do have a problem.
Having said this it'll pass I believe. They'll be bad and good news for them.
I have sympathy for mental issues but something struck be the wrong way.
It's Meghan and Harry that will have to find a purpose from no on. After Meghan's interview I don't see them as royal at all, the bridges are burned for good. I have no idea why Harry allowed Meghan to go as far and they were both sometimes unprepared which version is true.
The firm always wins and I believe it'll win this time too. I just wonder - what would be their response and strategy?

 

[Fem]

I understand Meghan's fears when she was on her own which is why I believe HM gave them Fragmore Cottage within private land and with estate security. But, their temporary solution offended the media and they accused them of abandoning KP and the Cambridges. Then came the drone filming through the windows.

Actually, the drone photos were of the house they were renting in Cotswolds, which is NOT on private estate, like Frogmore Cottage. We never got any footage of them while living in Frogmore. Meghan was papped in Canada, Harry in LA, both of them in LA, but nothing from Windsor.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I may be wrong, but I didn't see many direct personal attacks on the Family. Harry repeated that he and William are "in different places" or something like that, but he didn't badmouth the Duke of Cambridge. Harry made it clear though that he and Charles are estranged, and that he was somehow disappointed because, I think, he thought Charles would have understood better what he was going through. He also mentioned Charles stopped taking his calls at some point, but that he is working to heal the relationship. That surprised me because I assumed he was still closer to Charles than to William. Much to my surprise too, Harry also made a big deal of being cut off financially and losing official security.


The part where the Family came out badly was mainly the race issue, especially them not standing up to the tabloids and the alleged comment on Archie's skin color. Meghan didn't hear the comment herself though; if I understood it correctly, Harry told it to her and, when he was asked about it, he didn't deny it, but said he would not elaborate. The timing of the alleged comment was also different, if I remember it correctly, in Meghan's and Harry's versions.

The fact that they went so public about it all makes me think that they've burnt their bridges with the BRF.

 

[Tamara77]

In the process i salute, because i'm a naughty boy, the members on this forum who said they "will eat their hat" if something remotely against the BRF had to come out from this interview because, you knwow, the Stellar Susssexes, abviously, were too busy with their amaaaaazing charitable work.

I can bring the sauce ...

Oh yes, I can think of a few who were just shy of the point of guaranteeing that nothing would be said to "harm the royal family". Actually, I came on this morning after watching the interview to say just what you have.....and you've said it better. Thank you. These are members I'll not be reading posts from in the future, and skip over.

I can't add much because there are so many valid and enlightening posts that have been made here already that I agree with. But I will say, the two of them need to be dealt with.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Irrefutable fact: Meghan was mistreated…!

This fact has nothing to do with liking her or not—period

I don't think it's irrefutable at all.

 

[Denville]

Great-grandchildren of the monarch are not prince/princess unless they're the children of the second-in-line, and even the idea that all grandchildren of the monarch are prince/princess effectively ended when Louise was born, and Edward and Sophie decided that she should be Lady Louise rather than Princess Louise.


Regarding security, this seems to be a no-win situation. There were a lot of complaints about the idea of the taxpayer funding security for Beatrice and Eugenie. It was pointed out that a lot of famous people feel at risk but pay for their own security, and it was widely felt that the Yorks should pay their own security costs. The same would apply to the Sussexes' children.

I

No, they couldn't have had a secret wedding with the Archbishop of Canterbury - a) it would have been invalid without witnesses and b) they could not then have had a second wedding (only a blessing). They may have had a rehearsal, to make sure that everyone knew the order of service, but even that's unlikely, as bridesmaids etc would usually be present for that. Did they really need to involve the Archbishop of Canterbury in this, as well as the Royals?

in short this interview is mostly fiction....

 

[Tamara77]

I'm glad I didn't watch this- it sounds awful. I don't see how they can be allowed to represent the royal family in any capacity ( including titles and line of succession ) after this

It was very bad....beginning to end. I didn't know whether to feel sorry for Harry when his part of the interview began or angry. He sat curled up towards her with her fingers clutching his hand. He sounded nervous and uncertain at times, and the look of a weak, beta male about him. She is clearly in charge of this relationship.

 

[Fem]

After sleeping on the interview, the biggest revelations is that they're both fishes out of the water, not knowing what to do, not having any direction and desperately trying to find some sympathy in people.

Two things we know are a lie:
1. The "wedding before the wedding", for two reasons:
a/ they would not be allowed to marry twice, and the wedding in St George's Chapel was the traditional wedding ceremony (imagine if not? the press would have a field day)
b/ they need AT LEAST 5 people there, one to perform the ceremony, the marrying couple, two witnesses.
And Royal Family or not, the rules of the Church of England are the same for everyone.
2. The question about Archie's skin colour, which was, of all the things, corrected by Harry himself, after his wife lied. It didn't happen while she was pregnant, but before they even got married. His hesitation in discussing the whole conversation makes me think that Meghan lied not just about the timing, because he was pretty open (too open) with other things. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was made up.

Things that are possibly a lie or were twisted to show them as poor, poor people:
1. The security issue - they made us believe it was the big, bad RF who pulled their security, while it was Canada's decision, as they refused to pay for security of non-working royals (and they were funding their security since November to March, which is a nice bill...). I'm not sure if it's a lie lie, or they just are so out of their depth, thinking the title is only the title and it doesn't bring several issues while they are residing in a different country (especially Commonwealth country).
2. The refusal to get Meghan help - members of TRF, Harry including, admitted that they were getting help for mental health issues. Family openly supports organizations connected to mental health. I could believe that Meghan was offered a well-known, discreet professional and wanted someone else, or a specific place, and was said no.
3. The hospital appearence with Archie - I didn't see anyone commenting on that yet, but it was something that surprised me a lot. Were Harry and Meghan born yesterday? To claim they didn't know it was tradition to pose for some photos after leaving the hospital with the baby, and that they would do it if they were told they supposed to. I'm sorry what? It's not like Harry was there when his cousins, James and Louise, were born. Or his nephews and niece. Meghan was already a member of BRF when Louis was born and she didn't know... Am I supposed to believe that?
4. The titiles - Meghan twisted the issue so much it confused Oprah and everyone else around too, while knowing perfectly well that Archie would get the royal title after Charles becomes king. If there was an idea to issue new LPs that would change that rule, it wouldn't surprise me that much, as Charles was never a fan of Beatrice and Eugenie having HRHs. But that does not, at all, connects to them receiving security, as it was mentioned time and time again, plenty of royals, not to mention full-time working royals, do not have that protection.
5. The Royal Family was jealous of Meghan's popularity and thought she would be the new Diana, so they set on destroying her. I don't think any comment is neccessary.

Things I actually could believe in:
1. The institution was not ready to handle the couple's popularity and press reactions to Meghan. They tried all of their old tricks that simply did not work, hence asking Meghan to stay at home so that she wouldn't be seen outside, thinking it'll stop the articles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Is there a full transcript of the interview?

Great-grandchildren of the monarch are not prince/princess unless they're the children of the second-in-line, and even the idea that all grandchildren of the monarch are prince/princess effectively ended when Louise was born, and Edward and Sophie decided that she should be Lady Louise rather than Princess Louise.

Moreover, Archie wouldn't even be the first grandchild of a monarch who does not use or have the HRH as there is already a precedent, albeit voluntary, in the case of James and Louise. In any case, there would be no reason to assume that would have anything to do with Meghan or Harry personally (other than the fact tha Harry is a second-born son) and, much less, that it has anything to do with Archie's "race" or "skin color".

Many more cases of non-prince/princess grandchildren and great-grandchildren already exist in the form of Anne's children and grandchildren, Margaret's children and grandchildren, Alexandra's children, and so on. (I am aware that they are not entitled to be HRH under the 1917 LPs, but neither is Archie during this reign, so the comparison is appropriate.)