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

[Denville]

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.

yes this is nonsense. I can't imagine the A of Canterbury going through such a silly thing. it would not be legally binding without a licence and witnesses...

 

[Mbruno]

in short this interview is mostly fiction....

I would really like the press to ask Dr. Justin Welby about the double wedding story, one of which would necessarily have to be illegal (either way).


Either it is fiction, or Meghan and Harry had a "pretend wedding", or a blessing , or a rehearsal before their actual legal wedding and Meghan mistook it for a true wedding ceremony, which would be weird anyway. In any case, I can't imagine that the Archbishop of Canterbury would go along with that kind of crazy idea, especially considering his position as primate of the CoE and the Queen's position as supreme governor of the church.

 

[UglyAmerican]

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.

Another thing I just thought of about the wedding(s): They said the "secret" one was three days before the public one, right? I'd have to double-check the timing of the whole saga involving Meghan's father, but IIRC, there was no expectation of him being in the UK at that point. At that moment, he was in the hospital recovering from a heart attack, with everyone (supposedly) hoping he'd be able to make it to the UK for the public wedding. But if that wasn't the "real" wedding, then Meghan never had any intention for her father to be present for her "real" wedding. I doubt he knew the secret wedding was even happening, or it would have come out before now. This belies a lot of the crocodile tears Meghan has very publicly shed on the subject of her father missing her wedding.

 

[Hairball]

Hmm.

First of all, I didn't see the interview, so I wish to thank all of you for your comments and informative thoughts which helped me get the general idea of the interview.

I am left with one question: If they wanted privacy, why didn't they move to a farm in Idaho and raise chickens instead of going on Oprah?

This privacy thing makes no sense to me.

 

[Denville]

I would really like the press to ask Dr. Justin Welby about the double wedding story, one of which would necessarily have to be illegal (either way).


Either it is fiction, or Meghan and Harry had a "pretend wedding", or a blessing , or a rehearsal before their actual legal wedding and Meghan mistook it for a true wedding ceremony, which would be weird anyway. In any case, I can't imagine that the Archbishop of Canterbury would go along with that kind of crazy idea, especially considering his position as primate of the CoE and the Queen's position as supreme governor of the church.

if there was a rehearsal it would involve the bridesmaids, staff, etc etc. Even Meg could hardly mistake a ceremony in the back garden, for a royal wedding rehearsal...

 

[Estel]

yes this is nonsense. I can't imagine the A of Canterbury going through such a silly thing. it would not be legally binding without a licence and witnesses...

But it would be verifiable. Imagine if he came out and said none of this BS happened. It would throw their entire interview out of the window. I don't think she would do something like that given how calculative she is.
Perhaps what happened that day was the legal wedding, and the one we saw was a farce. They went inside to sign a register, who knows whether they did or not.

 

[Heavs]

I would really like the press to ask Dr. Justin Welby about the double wedding story, one of which would necessarily have to be illegal (either way).


Either it is fiction, or Meghan and Harry had a "pretend wedding", or a blessing , or a rehearsal before their actual legal wedding and Meghan mistook it for a true wedding ceremony, which would be weird anyway. In any case, I can't imagine that the Archbishop of Canterbury would go along with that kind of crazy idea, especially considering his position as primate of the CoE and the Queen's position as supreme governor of the church.

Justin Welby can't legally or religiously marry anyone in a garden. He can't marry anyone without witnesses. He can't marry anyone twice.

The marriage ceremony they had was the current standard one that well all saw. The "blessing after civil marriage" is different (scroll down).

https://www.churchofengland.org/pra...p-texts-and-resources/common-worship/marriage

All they've done is muddy the waters on this and caused people to question the legality of their actual marriage which wasn't in question before.

It is possible he offered them a private and informal blessing on their life together and advised them to consider this their personal vows to each other before God in order to calm them down about the big day and the craziness. But that's not a marriage.

But it doesn't make sense that he conducted an actual ceremony and then conducted another full ceremony in St. Georges. It just brings up way too many questions.

 

[Fem]

But it would be verifiable. Imagine if he came out and said none of this BS happened. It would throw their entire interview out of the window. I don't think she would do something like that given how calculative she is.
Perhaps what happened that day was the legal wedding, and the one we saw was a farce. They went inside to sign a register, who knows whether they did or not.

No, it's not possible

Church of England does not allow it. You can get married only once. If legal wedding already took place, there would be a blessing ceremony in St. George's Chapel, but that was pretty standard, traditional wedding ceremony. It would not be allowed to have two of them.
Besides, for any wedding to be legal, there have to be 2 witnesses present. So no "there were only 3 of us in our garden" bs.

 

[Mbruno]

But it would be verifiable. Imagine if he came out and said none of this BS happened. It would throw their entire interview out of the window. I don't think she would do something like that given how calculative she is.
Perhaps what happened that day was the legal wedding, and the one we saw was a farce. They went inside to sign a register, who knows whether they did or not.

The secret wedding, as she described it, in the bacjkgarden and with no witnesses, could not be legal, But, if the second one, which cost mllions, had the Queen and the RF in attendance and was televised all over the world, was actually a farce, then it would be even worse, actually a scandal.

 

[Fem]

Justin Welby can't legally or religiously marry anyone in a garden. He can't marry anyone without witnesses. He can't marry anyone twice.

Technically, he can marry anyone in a garden, as long as the garden is on Kensington Palace grounds, since it's public wedding venue. My friends had their wedding in orangery there. So while technically the venue would make sense, the second and third arguments are throwing that idea out of the window.

 

[Denville]

But it would be verifiable. Imagine if he came out and said none of this BS happened. It would throw their entire interview out of the window. I don't think she would do something like that given how calculative she is.
Perhaps what happened that day was the legal wedding, and the one we saw was a farce. They went inside to sign a register, who knows whether they did or not.

No, they could not have a legal wedding with just 3 of them. There would have ot be a licensed place, a license, a celebrant and 2 witnesses. She is talking nonsense...

 

[Estel]

No, it's not possible

Church of England does not allow it. You can get married only once. If legal wedding already took place, there would be a blessing ceremony in St. George's Chapel, but that was pretty standard, traditional wedding ceremony. It would not be allowed to have two of them.
Besides, for any wedding to be legal, there have to be 2 witnesses present. So no "there were only 3 of us in our garden" bs.

Then the wedding in the backyard was some pretend kind of thing where they recited their vows. Either way, I hope the press follows this up with the A of C.

 

[Denville]

Then the wedding in the backyard was some pretend kind of thing where they recited their vows. Either way, I hope the press follows this up with the A of C.

Im sure he's very embarrassed..

 

[Heavs]

Technically, he can marry anyone in a garden, as long as the garden is on Kensington Palace grounds, since it's public wedding venue. My friends had their wedding in orangery there. So while technically the venue would make sense, the second and third arguments are throwing that idea out of the window.

I suppose they could also have found a "standing structure" somewhere as well, possibly the same Orangery.

But yes the other points do stand and if the AofC actually performed a full legally binding wedding three days before then having another actual wedding later throws up all sorts of questions, even if there were no witnesses. I actually know someone who works at Church House, I might email them and see if they have any light to shed.

And seriously if they'd have preferred to actually go the Bea and Edo route then they could have. It would have caused a fuss but I'm sure the country would forgive them the £32 million that was spent on it.

 

[Alison H]

According to the BBC:


A source close to the Sussexes has told the BBC that the wedding that Meghan referred to in the "backyard" three days before the public wedding in May 2018 was a private exchange of vows.


OK, no problem with doing that. It's not legally binding, but I suppose it's quite romantic in a way, and I've seen quite a few things on social media about couples who've done that whilst weddings have been legally banned because of lockdown restrictions.


But what Meghan said was:


"You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. Ah, no one knows that. But we called the Archbishop and we just said look, this thing, the spectacle, is for the world. But we want our union between us.

So the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury."




I'd love to hear Justin Welby's comments on this, but I very much doubt that he wants to get involved in this sorry mess.

 

[carlota]

Woah. Now that was explosive.

There’s things I don’t think I’ll comment on unless we get more information on (the racism claims) as I think those are really sensitive topics.

I will however say that this is a very one sided interview. I’ll also say that even if they praised the queen all over the interview, by criticising the institution, they are indirectly criticising her, so I don’t buy what they say about having the utmost respect for her. The racism accusations, the lack of support… ultimately she was the head of the institution that allowed this to happen so a low blow for her. If they appreciate her that much, why put a 94 year old through this situation? why does the queen have to wake up to someone telling her all the dirt they aired? I’d hate to do that to my elderly family.

Also, at no point were they asked any questions that would put them in a bad light (M’s relationship with her father/sister in law for example). I also struggle to see how a family who champions mental health wouldn’t ask for help for M. even if the family hadn’t, Harry has plenty of relationships in the mental health arena and could have made the necessary arrangements for her to get treatment – and put his foot down with his family (we know he can do that when he wants, so why not for something as serious as suicidal thoughts?). To sit still and say they weren’t allowed to seek help is most astounding to me – they sound totally helpless and powerless. that is not how adults behave. And why does Meghan go to the HR department to discuss this? surely the queen/Charles would have been the right people to be in touch with on this? They sound very powerless in this interview overall – as if they were some sort of second class employee of the firm with no money. But they weren’t – they were senior royals and definitely not moneyless. Surely they had a lot more power/authority than they make it sound in this interview. M claiming that no one taught her how to sing the anthem – really?! This is a clever woman, does she really need someone to teach her the anthem? Go on youtube!

Another astonishing aspect is how their narrative changed from ‘the media caused us to flee’ to ‘the family / firm caused us to leave our roles’. Almost mention of the media and their damaging role in all this. another narrative that changed is how Charles’ used to be ‘meghan’s second father’ – he is now the dad who doesn’t take the calls of his son wanting to quit royal life.

On Meghan being told to keep a low profile/not being allowed to meet with friends: I don’t believe this. We’ve seen Kate on countless occasions going out for food / walks with friends and family, going out shopping etc.

On their dealings with Netflix/spotify: they said they needed money to pay for security. Harry had an inheritance from diana and they got the 100 million deal with Netflix – if they did it just to pay for security surely this would have covered it? I don’t buy it. they did it because they don’t want to become irrelevant and they need to sustain their brand.
Meghan claims royals changed rules so Archie did not get title: my understanding is that the letters patent makes Archie not a prince and it has been this way since the Wessex’s kids were born, regardless of what they say the palace decided when he was about to be born so don’t get why there’s drama around this?

harry said members of his family suggested Meghan should carry on acting “because there was not enough money to pay for her” --- I don’t believe this for a minute. If anything they’d want her to definitely stop acting: how embarrassing would it have been to see the duchess of Sussex still starring as rachel zane and involved in the scenes she used to shoot for suits? This is the most ridiculous statement.

A positive thing that has come out of this is M’s and Kate’s relationship clarification. Apparently Kate did something wrong, apologised in a lady-like manner in line with someone in her position and they moved on – and it seems that M bears no resentment. Again, this is a one sided interview and it is unlikely we will know Kate’s opinion on this.

 

[Princess Merena]

I do wonder why Charles stopped taking his son's calls? Might it be because the said son was making such an outrageous demands and ranting at his father about not getting his will through that he eventually had enough and stopped answering?

 

[QueenMathilde]

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.

From what I've read the whole interview was an attack on the royal family. They accused them of being racist - you don't get worse than that.


I still don't get why their complaining about being cut off from royal funding and security - they QUIT! Why would they still get royal perks after that?


If they'd have stayed they would still get funding and security.


Also Anne's children don't have titles.

 

[Estel]

According to the BBC:


A source close to the Sussexes has told the BBC that the wedding that Meghan referred to in the "backyard" three days before the public wedding in May 2018 was a private exchange of vows.


OK, no problem with doing that. It's not legally binding, but I suppose it's quite romantic in a way, and I've seen quite a few things on social media about couples who've done that whilst weddings have been legally banned because of lockdown restrictions.


But what Meghan said was:


"You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. Ah, no one knows that. But we called the Archbishop and we just said look, this thing, the spectacle, is for the world. But we want our union between us.

So the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury."




I'd love to hear Justin Welby's comments on this, but I very much doubt that he wants to get involved in this sorry mess.

Yeah, totally. Imagine saying that to the A of C. Look, come on out, we want a private union. The perks of being royalty

 

[Roslyn]

Justin Welby can't legally or religiously marry anyone in a garden. He can't marry anyone without witnesses. He can't marry anyone twice.

The marriage ceremony they had was the current standard one that well all saw. The "blessing after civil marriage" is different (scroll down).

https://www.churchofengland.org/pra...p-texts-and-resources/common-worship/marriage

All they've done is muddy the waters on this and caused people to question the legality of their actual marriage which wasn't in question before.

It is possible he offered them a private and informal blessing on their life together and advised them to consider this their personal vows to each other before God in order to calm them down about the big day and the craziness. But that's not a marriage.

But it doesn't make sense that he conducted an actual ceremony and then conducted another full ceremony in St. Georges. It just brings up way too many questions.

The "secret wedding" part I have no trouble accepting, but it was clearly not a legal wedding and I didn't think Meghan was saying it was. As you suggest, I think they were offered the opportunity to have a private ceremony to make their personal vows to each other: a private, personal moment to enjoy without the pressures of the circus that would follow a few days later. Maybe that first ceremony was the one they think of as their wedding in their hearts.

 

[Alisa]

For all the posters who are commenting without having watching the interview I really think you are doing yourself a disservice. Watch the interview and then you'll have an informed opinion.
As usual, alot has been taken out of context or reworded to write articles to fit certain press agenda.

 

[Kellydofc]

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.

I think you have it bang on. I also think that the Charles money supply has stopped and they never calculated on that.

 

[QueenMathilde]

For all the posters who are commenting without having watching the interview I really think you are doing yourself a disservice. Watch the interview and then you'll have an informed opinion.
As usual, alot has been taken out of context or reworded to write articles to fit certain press agenda.

I don't think I could stomach the interview after reading through the posts here.

 

[Kellydofc]

But it would be verifiable. Imagine if he came out and said none of this BS happened. It would throw their entire interview out of the window. I don't think she would do something like that given how calculative she is.
Perhaps what happened that day was the legal wedding, and the one we saw was a farce. They went inside to sign a register, who knows whether they did or not.

I know the BRF won't comment on anything and I'm now at the stage where I'm utterly fine with that. But I do sort of want the Archbishop of Canterbury to clarify this point. I don't know if he can but I for one would like to have this point cleared up legally.

 

[Alisa]

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".

That's the point though isn't it. It is what the public see. The royals put on a public face-no one really knows what goes on behind closed doors. Charles and Camilla and the Cambridges marriage could all be hanging by a thread and the public could never know it.

I never would've thought that the Duchess would've been suicidal while 5 months pregnant.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I'm debating whether to watch it or not as I was trying to avoid it,which is impossible!

 

[Princess Xenia]

I have never seen a good thing come out from publicly whining about your relationships with your family and in-laws. If you have a problem, ask for help from a professional or talk it with the ones who you a have a problem or let it go and ignore the people who bother you.

I don’t get why Harry and Meghan think they are so interesting? The sole reason may be interesting is that belong to an institution that they want no part of and yet they are trying to damage the ‘Firm’ and keep their titles.

Can they give up their titles on their own or should it be done by the parliament??

 

[Alisa]

That's exactly why you should watch it. Some of the comments here are gross exaggerations of the actual interview. Watch it for yourself and form your own conclusion.

I don't think I could stomach the interview after reading through the posts here.

 

[Kellydofc]

For all the posters who are commenting without having watching the interview I really think you are doing yourself a disservice. Watch the interview and then you'll have an informed opinion.
As usual, alot has been taken out of context or reworded to write articles to fit certain press agenda.

I have no interest in boosting the ratings of anything they appear in. To do so will only lead to more interviews. I'd rather all of this stop. So I won't watch. I know it's to much to hope that they'll fade into the background but I won't help support them.

 

[Estel]

I don't think I could stomach the interview after reading through the posts here.

Neither can I. I have read the posts here, and have heard YT commentators quote them, and that's enough for me. Cannot tolerate such venom.