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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, I knew nothing good would come from this interview but I didn't expect it to be this bad.

Harry and Meghan have torpedoed any future relationship with his family for good. It's been obvious for some time that there were issues in the family but this interview will only increase the estrangement. So they not see this interview has made the estrangement permanent? Yes, they probably got a lot of money from it but at what cost?

Does Harry not understand why his mom regretted the Panorama interview? I can't imagine Harry will be welcomed back by the British public ever again. He says he loves his grandmother but they've done incalculable damage to the institution to which she's devoted her entire life. I personally have republican leanings (at least for Canada, my country) but I have tremendous personal respect for the Queen & I recognize it's an important institution in the UK.

I feel very sorry for the Queen , Charles and William & Kate and all the members of the British royal family to have members who chose to do this interview. I can't imagine how hurt they all are.

It's very sad that things got to this level & I don't expect anyone will be able to mend fences now.
 
Last edited:
This is all laid out in the Succession Act of 2013, as of right now Archie isn't entitled to be called a Prince. However, once Charles becomes King he will automictically become one. It's an act of Parliament. Harry knows this and I have NO DOUBT Meghan knows it as well. Apparently they wanted the Queen to make Archie a prince right away. But he will be one someday when Charles is king. Honestly Meghan should have corrected Oprah.

Very true, although, I think she should have just given him the Prince title.
 
Yep and I think it's a lie they won't be paid for this interview.

The American networks get around that by, say, paying a fee to use personal photos or video footage that the interviewee owns, or paying the going rate for filming at a private location if owned by the subject. Harry and Meghan's chickens were filmed, so Harpo Productions could have paid for the use of the animals, filed under "props". I could get silly here and talk about chicken stand-ins for lighting the set, or chicken stunt doubles, but that would be off-topic.

A few thoughts on the broadcast --

There had to have been some research on her part regarding Harry. Even if someone isn't famous, it's just common sense to do a bit of checking.

I've never read nor heard a member of the BRF call Sarah Ferguson "Fergie" before. That was odd.

Harry's statement about his father and brother being "trapped" and "they don't get to leave" was appalling.

Meghan said that palace staff "lied to protect others, but wouldn't tell the truth to protect us." One just knows that situations are never that cut and dried and things are certainly way more nuanced and complex.

When Oprah asked Meghan if Kate welcomed her, Meghan opened her eyes a bit wider, gave it a two-beat pause and responded that "Everybody was welcoming." Meghan's an actress. She has to know the impression such a response would give.
 
This is all laid out in the Succession Act of 2013, as of right now Archie isn't entitled to be called a Prince. However, once Charles becomes King he will automictically become one. It's an act of Parliament. Harry knows this and I have NO DOUBT Meghan knows it as well. Apparently they wanted the Queen to make Archie a prince right away. But he will be one someday when Charles is king. Honestly Meghan should have corrected Oprah.

This is what Chris Ship said:

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv
·
3h
My understanding of them rules is this: the children and grandchildren of the Sovereign automatically get HRH (unless, like Princess Anne she asks her kids not to have them). Great-grandchildren only get them if the Queen intervenes - as she did for Charlotte and Louis

In other words, the Queen intervened for Charlotte and Louis, but not for Archie. Maybe that is the bone of contention for Meghan and Harry.

(That is, if Chris Ship is correct).
 
IMHO she meant that for Archie like for the kids of William, new letters patent by the queen would have been needed to make him into a prince before his grandfather became king, because great-grandsons were not considered to even exist when the original letters patent was given in 1917.



I did not see the interview but read a report about it by The New York Times and it didn't sound so off to me.The mechanism how this works has been discussed here and I guess Meghan was informed about the decision and as the NYT put it, she was more concerned about the fact that Archie on not being made a prince, would not receive personal security. Which is a concern I can understand as a mother.

As some posters have pointed out earlier (and probably phrase it better than I do :cool: :lol:), royal titles (HRH Prince/Princess) does not guarantee royal protection. Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie no longer has royal protection. Even the Gloucesters and Kents who are HRH Prince/Princesses (as grandchildren of George V through male-line) only has protection when they are doing engagements, despite being working royals.
 
This is what Chris Ship said:

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv
·
3h
My understanding of them rules is this: the children and grandchildren of the Sovereign automatically get HRH (unless, like Princess Anne she asks her kids not to have them). Great-grandchildren only get them if the Queen intervenes - as she did for Charlotte and Louis

In other words, the Queen intervened for Charlotte and Louis, but not for Archie. Maybe that is the bone of contention for Meghan and Harry.

(That is, if Chris Ship is correct).

Princess Anne's children were not HRH not because she asked for them not to have it, but because they were not MALE-LINE grandchildren of the sovereign. They were never entitled to have it, mother's wishes aside...
 
As some posters have pointed out earlier (and probably phrase it better than I do :cool: :lol:), royal titles (HRH Prince/Princess) does not guarantee royal protection. Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie no longer has royal protection. Even the Gloucesters and Kents who are HRH Prince/Princesses (as grandchildren of George V through male-line) only has protection when they are doing engagements, despite being working royals.

Do Lady Louise and Viscount Sevren have protection whilst minors? Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie certainly did....

Edit: as of 2011, the Earl and Countess of Wessex lost their RPOs. From my research, it may be funded privately too
 
Last edited:
They aren't "letting go" of security. They didn't say that. They said that in Canada their RPO security was pulled, which meant Harry had to make some quick decisions. Because they had friends, like Tyler Perry, they were given a breather to figure things out. Tyler Perry paid for their security, sent his private plane for them to fly out of Canada before the border shut down, and allowed them temporary shelter in his Beverly Hills home, till they figured things out. That's what friends are for. Even better when they are friends with money.

M&H weren't and aren't destitute obviously. But who they are as people automatically means extraordinary expenses, chiefly with security, and trying to obtain the kind of lifestyle Harry was accustomed to. Meghan had already given up her entire life and profession. She probably had a few million in investments and the royalties I mentioned earlier, but that's not enough to cover everything they were staring at. Therefore, Harry had to utilize some of the money his mother and great-grandmother left to him. So no neither of them are broke. But I don't think we can imagine the type of expenses they were facing right off the bat. They had to look forward to generating income.

One of their stated desires upon stepping back was to be financially independent because of how the press kept bashing them about paying for their lifestyle, which was not a criticism continually leveled at other royals.

I'm saying they aren't working royals any more. They will never be working royals again. They've burned that bridge. Of course their security was taken away in Canada. That was entirely appropriate.

No, they're not broke but it's abundantly clear they can't live the kind of lifestyle Harry is used to so they are going to have to economize. Not in the way you and I are used to but economize for him. If that means they can't have security guards 24/7 then so be it. All of Harry's cousins and his Aunt and Uncles seem to survive just fine. And they don't have to live a posh lifestyle. Warren Buffet is fantastically rich and lives in a tiny house. They could retire and live a quiet life out of the public eye but they are choosing to not do that. So I'm not going to cry a river of tears because a couple of rich people can't live quite as posh a life as they want because they chose to alienate his family.
 
It was horribly damaging. I doubt America will cover any future Royal wedding or coronations.

Pish posh. They definitely will. Some station will probably hire Meaghan to do color commentary but others will cover it properly.
 
I will accept an award, because I actually watched that for the second time to make sure what Meghan said.

She said she was feeling suicidal and it didn't seem like her, so she was afraid for herself, blah blah, so she went to some senior palace official (no name was mentioned, no description given to whom) and asked them to be admitted somewhere and claimed that was refused, because it would look bad on the family. (So my guess here be some US clinic known for getting celebrities back into working shape? :lol:)

Then she went to the HR department and asked for help, where she was turned down, because she was not a paid employee. Which makes sense, because the HR department is for employees and not members of BRF.

But you're right, it does not make any sense whatsoever. Between the fact that the BRF never actually hide the fact that they do indeed look for professional help in regards to their mental health, all the mental health initiatives they do, like... Just no. Something smells fishy here.


Thank you! I didn't know what she meant with paid employee. Now it makes sense - at least that part, because the rest still doesn't.

Why would Meghan, who doesn't trust "the men in grey" and doesn't want their advice, ask one of them to admit her to hospital? And then the HR department... Why could she not ask Harry? This makes absolutely no sense.

Furthermore, the royal family would not stop a family member from admitting themselves to a clinic if they felt suicidal, that's just completely unrealisitc.
 
I'm so happy for them that they are having a girl, which was my hope and guess! They must be deciding on possible names. I'm surprised they shared their knowledge publicly.


I’m not at all surprised they shared the sex of the baby.
 
This is what Chris Ship said:

In other words, the Queen intervened for Charlotte and Louis, but not for Archie. Maybe that is the bone of contention for Meghan and Harry.

(That is, if Chris Ship is correct).

I think you have hit on it. The issue is they don't think Archie is being treated as the equal to Charlotte and Louis. She knows there are counterarguments so she made up the security concern.
 
Harry is higher profile than Zara and I believe is at more risk but the U.S. government doesn't pay for security for private citizens and it seems that the U.K. doesn't either. He had security as a senior member of the family but they left. They have these huge deals with Netflix and Spotify, they live in a huge mansion and before the lockdown, took expensive vacations. Why should the taxpayers pay for their security.

They did not have the deals with Netflix and Spotify when they were in Canada, which is when the RPO security was pulled, obviously as a way to force or encourage Harry to give up and return to the royal fold.

If you follow the chronology and listen closely to everything M&H said, what they said is not hard to understand. They aren't perfect people, and they aren't the monsters the U.K. media have been trying to paint them as either.

Honestly, there's a much bigger takeaway about the downsides of life in the gilded cage, which have affected members of the monarchy down through the ages. It's very easy to see that if you are a student of British royal history like I am.

To continue to place the status quo rosy public view on everything about the monarchy is to miss the lessons that really need to be learned from all of this. It will take time to digest. If some observers prefer not to maintain an open mind, there are plenty of other people who will weigh in on this and try to sort this through for greater understanding. Because this whole saga is bigger than just Meghan and Harry, which at one point in a statement, Harry even said.
 
Last edited:
Pish posh. They definitely will. Some station will probably hire Meaghan to do color commentary but others will cover it properly.

IIRC, the US public soured on the royals after Charles and Diana divorced, because most Americans sympathized with Diana, but it was back to normal by the time William married Kate.

It'll be the same with this. The royals may be out of favour for a while, but it will all pass, probably when George comes of age and starts dating.
 
Do Lady Louise and Viscount Sevren have protection whilst minors? Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie certainly did....
Beatrice and Eugenie did have protection but that changed because there were major concerns about the cost of protecting the extended royal family. Prince Andrew had to pay for their security although I'm not sure he still does.
 
This is what Chris Ship said:

Chris Ship@chrisshipitv
·
3h
My understanding of them rules is this: the children and grandchildren of the Sovereign automatically get HRH (unless, like Princess Anne she asks her kids not to have them). Great-grandchildren only get them if the Queen intervenes - as she did for Charlotte and Louis

In other words, the Queen intervened for Charlotte and Louis, but not for Archie. Maybe that is the bone of contention for Meghan and Harry.

(That is, if Chris Ship is correct).

It's possible that was done because William is the future king. Which once again gives credence to the long floated rumor that Meghan wanted her and Harry to be equal to William and Kate. That was never going to happen because of where they are in the order of succession.
 
I think you have hit on it. The issue is they don't think Archie is being treated as the equal to Charlotte and Louis. She knows there are counterarguments so she made up the security concern.

What are you saying? The security concern was not made up. Didn't you listen to what Harry said? His and his family's RPO security was pulled in Canada at a time when they did not have any plans in place. They had hoped initially to be able to live part-time in Canada, and still represent the Crown in some fashion. None of that worked out. Why are you saying that the security concern was made up? There were definite threats to their security, including death threats they had faced since the time of their marriage.
 
They did not have the deals with Netflix and Spotify when they were in Canada, which is when the RPO security was pulled, obviously as a way to force or encourage Harry to give up and return to the royal fold.

If you follow the chronology and listen closely to everything M&H said, what they said is not hard to understand. They aren't perfect people, and they aren't the monsters the U.K. media have been trying to paint them as either.

Honestly, there's a much bigger takeaway about the downsides of life in the gilded cage, which have affected members of the monarchy down through the ages. It's very easy to see that if you are a student of British royal history like I am.

To continue to place the status quo rosy public view on everything about the monarchy is to miss the lessons that really need to be learned from all of this. It will take time to digest. If some observers prefer not to maintain an open mind, there are plenty of other people who will weigh in on this and try to sort this through for greater understanding. Because this whole saga is bigger than just Meghan and Harry, which at one point in a statement, Harry even said.
I would not want to be a member of the royal family and I support Harry and Meghan walking away.. Harry inherited a large sum from Diana and now he has these contracts for big money but yet they are upset that they have to pay their own security.
 
IIRC, the US public soured on the royals after Charles and Diana divorced, because most Americans sympathized with Diana, but it was back to normal by the time William married Kate.

It'll be the same with this. The royals may be out of favour for a while, but it will all pass, probably when George comes of age and starts dating.

It'll start before then. My guess is when Charlotte can be seen as a fashion icon.
 
The simple way to deal with the complaint about Archie's title and style would be to change the system so HRH etc is only given to the sovereign's children, and to any children of the heirs apparent in the direct line - the children of future sovereigns.

IMHO, there is no need for Harry's kids to be HRH. Ditto for Louis' children when the time comes.
 
What are you saying? The security concern was not made up. Didn't you listen to what Harry said? His and his family's RPO security was pulled in Canada at a time when they did not have any plans in place. They had hoped initially to be able to live part-time in Canada, and still represent the Crown in some fashion. None of that worked out. Why are you saying that the security concern was made up? There were definite threats to their security, including death threats they had faced since the time of their marriage.

She made up the part where she wanted Archie to be a prince because he would be eligible for security. She obviously knows that princes do not automatically get security.
 
I pray, pray the parliament acts and the titles are removed. They can NOT go on TV - call the family racist, accuse Kate of being a bully and drag the entire family in the mud without anything to happen.
 
It's possible that was done because William is the future king. Which once again gives credence to the long floated rumor that Meghan wanted her and Harry to be equal to William and Kate. That was never going to happen because of where they are in the order of succession.



I think that’s exactly why it was done.

Meghan and Harry’s kids were never going to be treated the same as William’s. That’s the way it is.

I think being royal and what came with it was VERY important to both of them. Hence this scorched earth interview now.
 
The simple way to deal with the complaint about Archie's title and style would be to change the system so HRH etc is only given to the sovereign's children, and to any children of the heirs apparent in the direct line - the children of future sovereigns.

IMHO, there is no need for Harry's kids to be HRH. Ditto for Louis' children when the time comes.

I agree with this whole heartedly. In future the only ones to get an HRH should be George's children.
 
On another board a poster said this about it: This is a massive hissy fit because the Bank of Charles has closed and even with the Netflix and Spotify deals they don’t have enough to live how they want to.
 
I think that’s exactly why it was done.

Meghan and Harry’s kids were never going to be treated the same as William’s. That’s the way it is.

I think being royal and what came with it was VERY important to both of them. Hence this scorched earth interview now.

The irony now is they've totally cut themselves off from that royal life.
 
What are you saying? The security concern was not made up. Didn't you listen to what Harry said? His and his family's RPO security was pulled in Canada at a time when they did not have any plans in place. They had hoped initially to be able to live part-time in Canada, and still represent the Crown in some fashion. None of that worked out. Why are you saying that the security concern was made up? There were definite threats to their security, including death threats they had faced since the time of their marriage.



Harry and Meghan didn’t plan ahead. That’s on them. They were the fools who put up that idiotic website with the half in/half out plan that everyone but them knew would not work. And announced it as a done deal.
 
IIRC, the US public soured on the royals after Charles and Diana divorced, because most Americans sympathized with Diana, but it was back to normal by the time William married Kate.

It'll be the same with this. The royals may be out of favour for a while, but it will all pass, probably when George comes of age and starts dating.

Sure, we will see. I hope it will not be business as usual though, with no lessons learned because if nothing is learned, I can see all three of the Cambridge kids having to deal with the same constrictive issues and heir vs spare dynamics.

Let's also please realize that articles have been written revealing the arguments and misunderstandings that Harry and William had with their father and with each other over the years. There was an article in The Spectator last year which mentioned how the Queen's former private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, had helped smooth over concerns and that he had ideas for bringing all of the palace fiefdoms under one umbrella. However, Geidt was pushed out in 2017 in a power play by Andrew's and Charles' staffs. There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes in the royal firm. It's not like the vision of perfection presented to the public. So Meghan told the truth about her experience of that variance. Meghan walked into a family that already had a ton of issues going on, so it's unfair to blame 'rifts' on her.

No matter who Harry married, there were going to be problems that ensued, but just not on the level of 'race.' Still, there would have been over-attention on his spouse and possible scapegoating. None of the married-ins have it easy (witness two recent divorces in the family), but it was the 'racial' dynamic that played a bigger role in how Meghan was treated by the media, etc.
 
Do Lady Louise and Viscount Sevren have protection whilst minors? Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie certainly did....

Edit: as of 2011, the Earl and Countess of Wessex lost their RPOs. From my research, it may be funded privately too

When I searched up "Lady Louise Windsor Security" the only relevant article that I could find is the Daily Mail article that said Earl and Countess of Wessex lost £1m police protection in 2011 (as you mentioned earlier). The information is not exactly clear and reliable

The Earl and Countess of Wessex are to lose their team of six protection officers as part of moves to cut the £100 million cost of Royal security.

Prince Edward and Sophie are said to be ‘very unhappy’ about the proposal to strip them of police protection when they are not on official engagements. They plan to dispute the decision.

The Metropolitan Police and the Home Office have been told to trim the cost of taxpayer-funded Royal security across the board.

The Wessexes have six protection officers who work on a rolling rota, which costs the taxpayer an estimated £1.15 million a year.

The couple and their children – Lady Louise Windsor, seven, and three-year-old James, Viscount Severn – have a top-of-the-range alarm system at Bagshot Park, their £30 million Surrey mansion.

But security has always been a concern for Sophie, who worried that members of the public could enter the estate from the main road.

A friend of the couple said: ‘They’re very upset. They trust their staff and depend on them hugely.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lice-protection-Royal-security-costs-cut.html

I'm sure my post will probably moved to a different thread
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom