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

[tihkon2]

The skin tone of their children came from Harry (Meghan relayed it…Harry corroborated it)!!!!!

I doubt Harry would make that up

It sounded like one person asked Harry. If true, that one person was insensitive and ignorant at best and racist at worst. If the story is true.

Harry and Meghan are no saints. They have many faults. But this need to paint them as totally evil, self seeking, money grabbing...... its tired.

And I find the need to excuse them and paint them as goodhearted, selfless victims just as tired...

 

[AC21091968]

Here is an instagram post by a royal watcher and fan, who has given Harry & Meghan the benefit of the doubt and best wishes for the future. This royal watcher and fan has stated that after watching the Oprah's interview and sharing thoughts, this would be the last post about the couple.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CMJR6IHFmxK/

We have seen the reactions mostly from America, it will be interesting to see the reactions from the UK and other countries when the programme is broadcast. Yes some have been reading the live reports, but as I said earlier, the live feed often provides summaries rather than word-to-word transcript.

Speaking of live report, here's Chris Ship's analysis after watching the interview from his ITV's office at 1-3am. The article is published on Monday 8th March 6:14am, he must be so knackered now, even he already has double espresso

One of the shocking thing that I have read and I don't think many posters here have picked up is that nobody taught Meghan how to sing the National Anthem. I'm pretty sure she could search the words to God Save The Queen on Google and sing along on Youtube (There is actually a thread on the British National Anthem on this Royal Forum)

No-one at the Palace, says Meghan, helped her when she arrived or told her what to do, how to act even how to sing the National Anthem

Harry and Meghan loaded up a plane and dropped bomb after heavy bomb on Buckingham Palace in their Oprah interview
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-08...on-buckingham-palace-in-their-oprah-interview

Here is the BBC's take and 11 dot-point summary (with some details underneath each point) of the interview

Oprah interview: Harry 'let down' by dad, racism claims and Meghan on Kate
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's much-anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey has aired in the US - with the couple sharing their side of the story about life in the Royal Family.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56316659

Here is the Live reporting from BBC, with updates (mostly analysis) still going on
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-56271580

 

[ACO]

Well no doubt the press will wonder if they were planning to change the letters patents to prevent the Sussex children from becoming HRH once Charles is King. I mean people on this board speculated and suggested it TL happens.

As for the skin color comment? Why is anyone surprised?

Overall I felt Meghan went out of her way to talk positively about the family. It was Harry would really went into specifics.

That said — truly fascinating interview.

 

[adjovie]

Irrefutable fact: Meghan was mistreated…!

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

 

[yukari]

I don’t think when Meghan said that they got married three days before the wedding, she meant legal marriage. I mean there’s a whole procedure for it right?; from give notice for marriage where you have to fill the venue and date (changing place means to begin the process again and at least 29 days from the notice until you can get married), then the place also needs to have licence so you can’t just get married in some random place, also at least two witness so there’s no way of a “private ceremony with just the two of us and a minister.

But since she mentioned “the Archbishop” (likely the Archbishop of Canterbury), at least one tabloid will ask him or the church for clarification. And on the hand of tabloids, it could turn into something like abuse of “royal privilege” which would not look good for the church (particularly the Archbishop) as well.

My take is that it’s most likely a “faux ceremony” where they recited their vow to each other in front of the Archbishop when they met him.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

It would probably be Harry more than Meghan who was put off by this, since the Queen had stepped in to do the LP for Charlotte and Louis. I think Harry expected to be treated with equal respect as the second son who was being relied upon to serve and to take on the burdens of royal life.

Plus, Harry's mother raised him in a way so that he would feel good about himself, and not inferior to anyone. Diana even said that she wanted Harry & William to be treated equally as brothers and human beings, even though she knew William would be the heir. If they wanted Harry to pull so much weight serving the crown, especially when Charles became King, why was Harry told that Archie would not receive the titles he was entitled to as Harry's son?

The other part of this is that Harry supposedly wanted to leave when he was younger, possibly to make a career in the military where he felt comfortable and productive. His family and the firm told him it was best that he retire and come back to help out the firm with his grandparents getting older. Harry was not happy about that but he obliged. Seemingly, from his comments during this interview, Harry never really saw a way out as a single man, especially once the military option was denied to him. It was reported that he had not left the royal fold when he was younger due to his love and respect for his grandmother. He talked very lovingly of the Queen, as did Meghan. I believe M&H both felt they would have the opportunity within the firm to play a major role with the Commonwealth. That would definitely have benefited the firm too, so the royal handlers were very shortsighted. Plus, there was too much press attention on M&H. And the success of the South Pacific tour and the way the crowds greeted them (and even some of the good press they received) was frowned upon by some factions in the firm.

There's all of the built-in strictures and rules of the system and pressure from the people running it, which does not appear to be any of the main principals like the Queen or Charles. It appears that QE-II and Charles more or less listen to advice and act based on the regulations of the system, along with fear of the press molding popular opinion.

I utterly agree with these two points, especially the last bolded text. People like QEII and Prince Charles do not have have an intimate knowledge of every single operational decision. It's like saying a top 500 CEO has knowledge of the day-to-day runnings of their company. No - they rely on trusted people to do that for them. But the worrying trend is that someone who is intimately close to them, i.e. Prince Harry, became the whistleblower and it appears they did not believe him. Instead, he had to leave, protect his family because of indecisions and denial from the top.

IMHO, the RF should have done all in their power to protect Meghan (and Catherine) a lot more. No one should have to go through what Meghan had to endure. The BRF's processes are broken and no one is willing bring their thinking to the 21st century. If this were an ASX/NASDAQ company, most would have called for the CEO and board of executives resignation. However, I have seen people forgive, and blame those who are the victims of hate merely because they belong to a century old family and hiding behind the veil of tradition. No people, not acceptable.

Are they telling the truth? I believe they are. There is no gain in them lying, especially Harry. Time will tell if changes are afoot in the BRF. I hope so for the sake of Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis.

 

[RandyDrx]

As for saying William and his dad are stuck as well. He would know. He lived in the same world. He knows the same restrictions. And he also knows and speaks to them. Its not like they are strangers. And he is right, being a prince is some what being in a cage. Look what happened when they wanted to get a job and step back a bit, they got kicked out. Its an either 'you are all in or you get lost and we don't want you around any more'. They have been treated worse then Andrew who has not been stripped of anything, despite his scandals.

This isn't the first time Harry is putting words into his family members' mouths, I believe it was back in 2017 when he was interviewed by an American reporter when he claimed that nobody wants to be King or Queen.

Even if what he said was true, it wasn't his place to talk about it. If anything, it sounded like he was salty that HE wouldn't be a King.

 

[tihkon2]

Irrefutable fact: Meghan was mistreated…!

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

By some parts of the press? Certainly. By the Royal Family?

Nope. A possible fact. Maybe. Or maybe not. Have a nice day.

 

[Estel]

By some parts of the press? Certainly. By the Royal Family?

Nope. A possible fact. Maybe. Or maybe not. Have a nice day.

She is not alone. Press has mistreated everyone. And if we are to believe Harry, the very nature of the RF mistreats everyone.

 

[Queen Ester]

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.

Russell Myers
@rjmyers
Meghan has just claimed Buckingham Palace throw "holiday parties" for the UK tabloids and now I am wondering why I never got a ticket #OprahMeghanHarry
·

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368751321696894978

The American's will buy it because again their support stems from AA women who love that a "Black woman" married a Prince. Also American's are naïve on the Royal Family.

So what happens when this is over? Will they go into hiding forever?

Americans don't care, and big business stay away, money loves quiet, after all, who wants to employ a person who makes up derogatory storries about her boss and sues every time something does not go her way

 

[ACO]

Russell Myers
@rjmyers
Meghan has just claimed Buckingham Palace throw "holiday parties" for the UK tabloids and now I am wondering why I never got a ticket #OprahMeghanHarry
·

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368751321696894978

But they do host get togethers with the press. I have seen them referenced in the CC especially with Clarence House. I also know that Arthur Edwards and Robert Jobson both complained of requesting some meet and greet reception with Meghan and the as annoyed she declined. So she not entirely wrong here.

 

[Queen Ester]

Some of my biggest takeaways..

1. Security is costing them an arm and a leg and they’re really bitter that they have to pay for it.

2. It seems ALL the money from the trust Diana left them is gone— it only tied them over until the Netflix and Spotify deals came through...

3. They’re really bitter that The Queen did not make Archie an HRH

we can probably hear more of the same on Spotify, but I thought Netfix only pays them when they produce something

Well, the winner is Oprah! What a big scoop for her. It will be in her bio from now on.

I doubt it, everyone I know who watched, though it was very boring and fake, don't forget, tomorrow Oprah will share her thoughts on the interview, and I think, her views will be driven by the numbers and general reaction. By the way did anyone see the ratings?

 

[AC21091968]

Chris Ship is doing an interview on ITV's Good Morning Britain and has been told that it's not The Queen nor Prince Philip that commented on Archie's skin colour.

Good Morning Britain @GMB
‘I’ve been told it’s not the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh, so that leaves just Prince Charles, Prince William or their wives.’
ITV News Royal Editor @ChrisshipITV reveals who the member of the Royal Family who had concerns over Harry and Meghan’s son’s skin color could be.
5:44 PM · Mar 8, 2021·Grabyo​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368814859182342149

There are more clips on the Good Morning Britain's tweeter feed about Chris Ship's contribution.

 

[Estel]

Chris Ship is doing an interview on ITV's Good Morning Britain and has been told that it's not The Queen nor Prince Philip that commented on Archie's skin colour.

Good Morning Britain @GMB
‘I’ve been told it’s not the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh, so that leaves just Prince Charles, Prince William or their wives.’
ITV News Royal Editor @ChrisshipITV reveals who the member of the Royal Family who had concerns over Harry and Meghan’s son’s skin color could be.
5:44 PM · Mar 8, 2021·Grabyo​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368814859182342149

There are more clips on the Good Morning Britain's tweeter feed about Chris Ship's contribution.

So they're throwing Charles, William, and their wives under the bus. Besides, Anne, Andrew, Edward are also senior members of the royal family.

 

[Claire]

I don’t think when Meghan said that they got married three days before the wedding, she meant legal marriage. I mean there’s a whole procedure for it right?; from give notice for marriage where you have to fill the venue and date (changing place means to begin the process again and at least 29 days from the notice until you can get married), then the place also needs to have licence so you can’t just get married in some random place, also at least two witness so there’s no way of a “private ceremony with just the two of us and a minister.

But since she mentioned “the Archbishop” (likely the Archbishop of Canterbury), at least one tabloid will ask him or the church for clarification. And on the hand of tabloids, it could turn into something like abuse of “royal privilege” which would not look good for the church (particularly the Archbishop) as well.

My take is that it’s most likely a “faux ceremony” where they recited their vow to each other in front of the Archbishop when they met him.

Actually this might be true - it has long been rumored that The Wessex's got married in 1997. Reason for this logic they do not celebrate their wedding anniversary as their wedding anniversary. They celebrate some other day completely. Of course they might have some sentiment around that day, but I would place money that they were married in November 1997.

 

[Lucy Scot]

Chris Ship is doing an interview on ITV's Good Morning Britain and has been told that it's not The Queen nor Prince Philip that commented on Archie's skin colour.

Good Morning Britain @GMB
‘I’ve been told it’s not the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh, so that leaves just Prince Charles, Prince William or their wives.’
ITV News Royal Editor @ChrisshipITV reveals who the member of the Royal Family who had concerns over Harry and Meghan’s son’s skin color could be.
5:44 PM · Mar 8, 2021·Grabyo​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368814859182342149

There are more clips on the Good Morning Britain's tweeter feed about Chris Ship's contribution.

The royal reporters have gotten so much wrong in the past, why should I believe him about this?

 

[fandesacs2003]

I did not watched the interview (not clear if it was possible), but saw some excerpts.
Some first thoughs.
1. If it is true that when Meghan was pregnant the BRF was having discussions about the skin color of the baby to be born. Passing after the sad racist side of such a discussion.. Meghan is a metisse, her dad is white and her mum is black, consequently it is expected for her future kids to be influenced by both sides. The exact degree can be calculated only by genetists, (if such a calculation is possible). This was known when Meghan became the bride to be for Harry. So they were discussing what exactly? It is like having a parent blond and the other with dark hair. Baby can be anything inside this range, when it is born, you see.. So I don't really see the point of such a discussion / guessing against Meghan.
2. She said she was not prepared at all she was left alone inside the BRF without knowing anything.. OMG. This exactly happened with Diana (very touching to make similarities..) but Diana was at 1980, she was 20 years old, and never had any experience I life.
Meghal was more than 30 years old, she built already her life and career before meeting Harry, and they have been dating more than one year. She knew who is Harry, internet exists and she had plenty of time to think about all this. She could even ask him about her future life inside BRF, point that Diana could not do, as her contacts with Charles before marriage were very limited and official. So I cannot accept that Meghan did not know what to expect by entering the BRF. I just believe that she thought being able to change all this and live as her previous life. She didn't manage to, and this was the issue.
Entering a RF, and more the British one, is giving behind almost all your previous way of thinking and living, and adopt some rules. This is known and happens to all royal brides, and grooms also. If you cannot accept, you just not do the step, don't pass Rubikon.

 

[Denville]

Actually this might be true - it has long been rumored that The Wessex's got married in 1997. Reason for this logic they do not celebrate their wedding anniversary as their wedding anniversary. They celebrate some other day completely. Of course they might have some sentiment around that day, but I would place money that they were married in November 1997.

if they were marred in 1997, they could not legally get married again in 1999. Same goes with Meghan.

 

[Claire]

There are two rather odd things that are confusing myself and the two people that I am currently with?


1. Harry not knowing what to do with a suicidal person - I mean as a patron of mental health and wellbeing. Simply not knowing where to turn after how many years of supporting those charities, doesn't make sense. Especially when you can turn to your own charities, as in simply ring up Heads Together. I have also been told that many that a gentleman's agreement exists for a member of the family that seeks help at a therapists, and has spend time at a center. If this is true - then I don't see what a similar agreement could not be done for the Sussex's - and it also throws the whole the family didn't support me in the water.


Are royals scared of the tabloids - yes. I have seen deals gone down, where a story will be scrapped if they are given access to other stories early. I have been told of newspapers that will never write a good thing about a royal as they were slighted back in the early 1990's. It is one of the reasons why you do not play a media game - get out of it and stay out of it. Never believe your own press - especially when it is favorable. Do not feed tabloids stories, do not believe their friendship happy stories as they will easily place a lying damaging one just as fast. Tabloid news is a creature unto itself.

 

[Alison H]

Apologies if anyone's already said this - there were 19 pages of comments by the time I logged on! Archie was supposed to be the Earl of Dumbarton. It was announced, when he was born, that Harry and Meghan wanted him to be Master Mountbatten-Windsor: it was their choice that he didn't have the title of Earl.


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've just had a catch-up on Facebook, and not one of my friends has posted anything about the interview. This isn't because they're not interested in the Royal Family: we had a live discussion on the day of Harry and Meghan's wedding, and there was loads of speculation about what each of the children would be named. But no-one seems to be interested enough in this to have anything to say about it.


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?

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

if they were marred in 1997, they could not legally get married again in 1999. Same goes with Meghan.

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

 

[Lumutqueen]

I'm back, briefly.

I haven't watched the interview, nor will I because I can get enough of the sense of what's included without.

I will say that The Duke and Duchess of Sussex need to have their titles removed, not because of their interview but because they clearly want them removed. See this quote

"When asked if it was 'important' for Meghan that Archie be called a prince, she said she doesn't have any attachment to the 'grandeur' of official titles." If that is true, then petition parliament to have them removed and your life will become completely unattached from the royal family.

Also, the main reason I won't be watching nor will I be commenting any further is that the interview is clearly made for show and to drum up interest in themselves and likely contains very little fact. How do I know you ask?

"But she said it was about 'the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be."

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.

 

[SOS]

It seems there is a lot of miscommunication. Not just between Meghan and the royal family, but also between Meghan and Harry.

 

[Claire]

As it stand if Charles became king tomorrow - Archie automatically becomes HRH Prince Archie. Are the Sussex's going to say that the rules were changed due to them talking out and that they made a difference in the world.
Without a patent release - that it what it is.

 

[Osipi]

I have not watched the interview and at this point, I'm not certain if I ever will. I, still, have no idea of what good was to be accomplished by this interview. I was one of those people that was hoping that the interview would be centered on moving into a positive future and outlining their hopes and dreams and goals of what they wanted to accomplish. From reading through the pages and pages of posts here from those that have seen the interview, I get the feeling that the majority of the interview focused on the past and what led up to Harry and Meghan finally leaving as senior working royals.

My first thought is that with doing all the explaining and airing their feelings of how they were treated by the "Firm" and even family, it did sound as if they're not letting go of the past and holding onto animosity and hard feelings that getting away from that "toxic" environment was supposed to cure. Why does the public deserve an explanation? Every word they've uttered is going to make it a gold mine for the press that'll put any bad press they've had before seem like praise. For a couple starting up Archewell Foundation, PR and "getting the word out" to the general public is crucial for support and donations. To state that their aim back in Janurary 2020 was to be "financially independent" and then have this interview reiterating that financial support was cut off, it leads me to think people will wonder exactly where their donations would be going supporting an Archewell incentive. I have to think I'd think twice before donating.

It doesn't make sense that it was mentioned that Archie would need a title in order to have security. It's actually not up to the BRF nor the "Firm" or even the UK government/Parliament to decide on the level of security. That is, and always has been, an internal decision made by the Metropolitan Police Protection Command. Stepping down from royal service deemed the Sussexes on their own. No one owed them protection. It's expensive, that's for sure, but that's something the Sussexes should have taken into consideration ahead of time.

On the issue of Meghan receiving professional help for the mental stress and suicidal thoughts that she was experiencing, all I could think is why didn't she go to a private professional which could have been handled without anyone on the "outside world" being made aware? Surely she wasn't cash strapped at the time that she couldn't afford the best of care. If she wanted it.

So much for "upholding the values of the Queen". They didn't have to do this interview which put so many things into a bad light for them (and I would imagine that most Americans watching this interview did it for "entertainment purposes") but it also cast a black pall over anything positive they plan on doing to "make a difference" going into the future.

Nope. I don't see them coming back from this. I gave them the benefit of the doubt for the longest time but this interview, like Andrew's, signed, sealed and delivered a perspective of this couple that darkens their character.

 

[Heavs]

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

But the wedding blessing service is different to the service that Harry and Meghan had -which was basically the current standard CofE wedding from Common Worship.

We saw Harry and Meghan go off to sign the registrar with witnesses among other things. It's possible that the AofC gave them a blessing before hand "in case anything goes wrong, you've already made your vows" but he couldn't preside over a legally binding service "just the three of us" in a garden three days before the big event and then preside over a full on wedding later. Neither could Michael Curry who's a Bishop not an Archbishop anyway so they were talking about Justin Welby.

 

[Estel]

As it stand if Charles became king tomorrow - Archie automatically becomes HRH Prince Archie. Are the Sussex's going to say that the rules were changed due to them talking out and that they made a difference in the world.
Without a patent release - that it what it is.

Perhaps. Then the narrative would be that Meghan fought for her children. Remember who else said that?

 

[AC21091968]

The royal reporters have gotten so much wrong in the past, why should I believe him about this?

I have never said that was the truth. I just mentioned that according to Chris Ship (who is the more reliable royal reporter), it was not The Queen and Prince Philip.

I am also sceptical of the Sussexes claim that one senior working royal made a comment on Archie's skin colour. Meghan herself has lied about her contribution to Finding Freedom by initially claiming that she has no involvement, but then later admitted that she released information to the authors via third parties.

 

[Alison H]

I'm also sceptical about it, as there is no senior working royal whom I can imagine saying something like that. And, even if anyone actually did wonder, I think they'd be more likely to look it up on Google than to say it to Harry's face. However, none of us can know what one person said to another when no-one else was there, so we can't say for certain.


But there's now going to be a lot of speculation, just as there always is when anyone says that "An unnamed Premier League footballer did this" or "An unnamed daytime TV personality said that" or anything else along those lines, which puts everyone in a very awkward position. People will be claiming that they know that it definitely wasn't one person, or that they know who it was but aren't going to say.

 

[Mbruno]

Well no doubt the press will wonder if they were planning to change the letters patents to prevent the Sussex children from becoming HRH once Charles is King. I mean people on this board speculated and suggested it TL happens.

As for the skin color comment? Why is anyone surprised?

Overall I felt Meghan went out of her way to talk positively about the family. It was Harry would really went into specifics.

That said — truly fascinating interview.

Meghan's account of Archie's title (or lack thereof) was confusing.


First, she seemed to imply Archie was not made a prince as a great-grandson of the Queen and presented that as something exceptional when it is simply a straightforward application of the Letters Patent of 1917 and 2002 and applies to all of HM's great-grandchildren, except George, Charlotte and Louis.


Next, she changed the narrative somewhat implying, I think, that there was some discussion about the rules being changed in the future for Archie not to become a prince when Charles is king. That is very suspicious, first because , at the time Archie was born, a member here at TRF posted a reply from the Palace confirming, when asked about it, that the Letters Patent of 1917 would be followed and Archie would become a prince upon Charles' accession. Second, and that is my personal opinion, Charles would never openly discussion new LPs upon his accession while his mother is still alive because he knows the hierarchy and knows that titles of the RF are a matter for the Sovereign to decide, not the heir.


Third, Oprah then tried to suggest that Archie being deprived of his title was somehow tied to his race, which Meghan, in the best case scenario, did not deny. Even assuming Charles might one day as king limit the HRH to children of the heir only, that would simply be following a common trend in Europe which already applies to grandchildren of the monarch for example in the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. 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".


The part about the title is not really significant though, other than hurting Meghan's credibility (like the part she admits she had an illegal wedding, which I can't honestly believe). The most damaging parts of the interview IMHO actually were:


1) When Meghan claimed she was suicidal and the Palace was unresponsive or even uncooperative.


2) When Harry said he was sorry for Charles and William for being "trapped" into a system they can't get out of , implying, as I interpret it, that he is calling for the monarchy to be abolished so that his family can be set free, and that they don't do their job on their free will, but because they are forced to. Keep in mind that is not the first time Harry makes that kind of claim; he had already said something similar at least once, even before he left.


3) When Harry claimed that the RF was afraid of Meghan's star power after the Australia tour and that she could become a new Diana, and that caused a change of attitude towards her.