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

[Duchess_Watcher]

I'm pretty sure Meghan clarified that she and Kate are cool and hashed out their issues so I'm not sure why people think she is a victim of evil Meghan?

If this is true, then she wouldn't need to bring up the "She made me cry" nonsense. lol

 

[Kellydofc]

I'm pretty sure Meghan clarified that she and Kate are cool and hashed out their issues so I'm not sure why people think she is a victim of evil Meghan?

If everything was fine with Meghan and Kate she wouldn't have gotten on tv and told that story at all. Think about it, do you go to a party with a bunch of strangers and tell a story about how your sister-in-law made you cry all while you're telling everyone about how much trouble you're having with your in-laws in general and expect it to come off like everything is good between you and your sister-in-law?

 

[Estel]

If this is true, then she wouldn't need to bring up the "She made me cry" nonsense. lol

Exactly. N all the "Oprah asked her, she didn't bring it up" is just nonsense. They would've known what they were going to be asked.

 

[Heavs]

I think BP is currently determining how to deal with it - and if they do whose office it will come from. Personally I feel that the Queen should just put an end to this and draw the line but there are many people who feel that Charles should take responsibility.
However I am not necessarily sold on them saying anything.
what would you do
1. Leave it be and let time time its course? The family will forever be tainted with this now - and every event will be married by it. Essentially it shows them as weak and having something to hide.
2. Attack now with guns blaring. I think that they are very worried that the royal family reputation will be further harmed - but essentially isnt it already harmed in all this.

Attempting to clear things up didn't exactly help Andrew (no comment on if he's actually guilty)

Even if the comment was true and the person came out and said "it's me but I was just wondering about life being even more difficult for their potential off spring or wondering what they would look like, no malice intended" or even "I was ignorant but I'm sorry" it probably wouldn't help.

But I'm not sure doing nothing would heal anything in the long run either. There's always the possibility of a huge BLM protest alongside the jubilee celebrations next year which wouldn't be good.

Things like the title issues are easy to clarify but that won't stop people who refuse to believe the 1917 patents and feel Archie should have been made HRH anyway "to support POC".

 

[shaunaintexas]

I say that was a lie

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

a german article which sums it up quite good
no paywall, just click reading with ads

https://www.zeit.de/zeit-magazin/un....ext.zonaudev.twitter.ref.zeitde.share.link.x

Thank you, that's a good one!!


It's entitled "The fight against one's own insignificance"

Meghan and Harry remain vague, because who are they without the Royal Family?

"Oh my god," shouts Meghan when she sees the pastel-colored Better Living setting in which she greets Oprah Winfrey euphorically. "You are actually pregnant," she calls back. "Do you want to tell us the gender?" Meghan nods immediately. "In a moment, when my husband joins us later, we'll tell you." Scripted Reality can be so beautiful. 30 seconds airtime, the cliffhanger is in place.

...

It's about the couple's ability to survive in American show business, where sympathy and credibility are the only valid currencies. "What's your story" is the all-important question.

...

So Meghan is stepping it up, because she knows that you have to deliver in such a setting. During her first pregnancy with her son Archie in 2019, there were several conversations in the innermost circle about the possible dark skin color of the baby, she says vaguely. And she doesn't want to tell her who that was, asks Winfrey gently - because of course that would be the sensation. "It would be very damaging to them," replies Meghan.

...

Meghan and Harry don't mention the word depression, instead they and Winfrey refer to the joint series on mental health planned for Apple's streaming service. A video overlay, a beach scene in black and white, shows Archie, who is almost two years old. In between there are generic phrases, hints about mental crises that kept her awake at night, unbearable conditions at court, lack of security, lack of police protection. Halfway through, they've run out of steam.

Harry remains relatively stiff and aloof. In some places he even comes across as a defiant kid who refuses to admit who hit whom first. And so the viewer gets the impression that his wife is pushing him, with pleading glances, to unpack more. "How's your relationship with your brother," asks Winfrey. "And your father, does he answer the phone again?" Harry, who obviously did not go through coaching for protagonists of American emotion television, remains non-committal.

...

The two, who resigned as senior royals last year, want to tell their version of the story. The result is a sometimes confused chat, without any real new knowledge. The fact that the 1,200-year-old institution of the British monarchy is riddled with racist tendencies should not be tolerated, but to be honest, it comes as little surprise because of the slow processing of British colonial history. Prince Harry, who, in memory of his mother Princess Diana, has often spoken in recent years about periods of depression and his fear that history might repeat itself, can add little new.

...

The announced tour of Harry and Meghan's $ 14.6 million estate begins and ends in the chicken coop called Archie's Chick Inn. "We want to live authentically," says Meghan, sitting between the chickens - with shiny, open hair that is undulated to perfection.

And it is precisely this scene that symbolizes the couple's ambivalent world: preaching simplicity, living in luxury. Demanding privacy, but meaning maximum control over your own PR activities. That Harry and Meghan, after they recently had to finally give up all their royal patronages, do not want a complete break with the Queen and brother William, becomes clear when the prince repeatedly expresses the deep respect he feels for his grandmother. Meghan also speaks of her sister-in-law Kate as a "good person".

Because for business deals, the Harry & Meghan brand needs the favor of the largest possible global audience and thus the guarantee that many people will continue to be interested in them. If this capital melts away, the foundation of the business disappears and with it all the beautiful assets. And this capital is Harry's family, which Meghan married into. As far away as they want to be from their annoying relatives: Without the British Royal Family, they are just a couple speculating on Big Business with a mix of show business and charity.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Changing subjects, I found the CBC news article on why Canada would not pay for H&M's security indefinitely. I think it sheds some light on Harry's allegations about security.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harry-meghan-security-costs-rcmp-canada-1.5478022

Thank you for posting. They had more than a month's notice so they weren't left high and dry. Harry and Meghan claimed that they made the decision to step away after a lot of reflection. It looks like they didn't reflect on everything.

 

[moby]

This episode made me realize how vulnerable monarchies are against enemies from within. If they were indeed, The Firm, H&M would be faced with a big fat lawsuit now and perhaps not even be allowed to speak about the RF in the first place because there would likely be an NDA. Now I'm wondering, do other royal families have NDAs to married-ins?? Maybe that might be something useful from now on. Plus, it's a tool that Hollywood types like Meghan would totally understand..

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I'm pretty sure Meghan clarified that she and Kate are cool and hashed out their issues so I'm not sure why people think she is a victim of evil Meghan?

This was not at all the impression I got from the interview. I do not think she was trying to portray Catherine as a villain but I do not think she was trying to bury the lede that things were never particularly good between the two of them nor that they are in a good place now. I think Meghan was trying to convey that these are two very different people, that Catherine is a "good person" but that things were never in a great place between them:

• She was specifically asked about Catherine being welcoming towards her. She hesitated and rather than answer whether Catherine was welcoming, hesitated and said something evasive about the family being welcoming.
• When asked about pictures that showed the two of them as warm sisters-in-law at Wimbledon, she responded that things were "not as they seemed" (yikes)
• At pains to describe the steps he has taken to restore his relationship with his father and brother, Harry never mentioned Catherine, whom he often described as a sister, with whom he was famously close, and whom he has known (literally) most of his life at this point.

This is very much in keeping with stories that the two are both good people but not compatible as friends.

But again, I don't think these things were meant to portray Catherine poorly. There is no need to falsely portray a friendship that does not exist.

 

[Duchess_Watcher]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ell-revelations-family-21st-day-hospital.html

lol@I just phoned the Queen to check in on him. Okay, Meghan. This is apparently during the interview?

 

[Sionevar]

This episode made me realize how vulnerable monarchies are against enemies from within. If they were indeed, The Firm, H&M would be faced with a big fat lawsuit now and perhaps not even be allowed to speak about the RF in the first place because there would likely be an NDA. Now I'm wondering, do other royal families have NDAs to married-ins?? Maybe that might be something useful from now on. Plus, it's a tool that Hollywood types like Meghan would totally understand..

I can see them using pre-nups for incoming spouses to set out standards for how they would be expected to behave in the event of a divorce.

Such a pre-nup might have worked with Meghan to some degree. But what about Harry? He is a born member of the BRF. What type of NDA could they have put in place to keep him quiet?

 

[leticia.h]

Eventually, I think Harry will realize what he has done and it will be too late. It really will be very late.

It's already too late. This interview ruined any kind of future relationship for harry, meghan & kids and they family.

 

[Blog Real]

Covers of today's UK newspapers with Harry and Meghan's interview.

https://www.hola.com/realeza/casa_i...trevista-duques-sussex-tsunami-reino-unido/1/

 

[SOS]

I haven't seen the interview yet, but from the quotes it appears Harry and Meghan have different messages. Harry blames the media and feels let down by his family. Meghan blames the media and his family. I wonder how Harry feels about Meghan's message. It's easy to have a common enemy and to blame the media for being racist, but Meghan spread the message that his family are racists. That's probably not the message Harry wanted to send to the world.

 

[Sionevar]

One thing that confuses me - Harry said Charles and William have learned to live with the 'toxic environment' of the royal family.

Who exactly is creating this toxic environment? The Queen? Members of the Household? The grey men? The government?

Surely, given what senior positions they hold, if Charles and William consider something to be toxic, they would have the ability to change it? Or is the royal bureaucracy such an immovable, all-controlling beast that the actual royals themselves have become cogs in its machine - puppets with no influence and no say over how things are done?

It all seems a bit odd.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I don't think that they could have had a legal wedding 3 days before the real one because, IIRC (not Anglican myself), the Anglican church doesn't allow a 2nd wedding ceremony to be performed in the church. You get one ceremony in the church. So if they did ask the AoC to marry them ahead of time... I can't see that happening... How do you reconcile the "no witnesses doesn't make it really legal" with the fact that you are, essentially, reading the wedding rite to them and allowing them to exchange vows? I just can't see the AoC doing that, not if he has a shred of integrity (and I'm sure he does!).

But wedding rehearsals are okay, right? The Archbishop could have viewed it as a rehearsal, they could have asked for a quick run through (with different vows) and he could have said, "Sure, let's rehearse in the yard."

The whole thing is very strange of course.

 

[Mbruno]

But I'm not sure doing nothing would heal anything in the long run either. There's always the possibility of a huge BLM protest alongside the jubilee celebrations next year which wouldn't be good.

There may be BLM protests during the Jubilee from people who identify the Jubilee or, more broadly the Crown, with Britain's imperial past and argue that this imperial past is in turn identified with racism and colonialism.

I don't think there will be BLM protests during the Jubilee because of Meghan's interview.

In any case, the Queen's work in the Commonwealth, even standing up to Margaret Thatcher to push for sanctions against Apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, has cemented her good credentials on race. I don't think this interview has changed that perception.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

One thing that confuses me - Harry said Charles and William have learned to live with the 'toxic environment' of the royal family.

Who exactly is creating this toxic environment? The Queen? Members of the Household? The grey men? The government?

Surely, given what senior positions they hold, if Charles and William consider something to be toxic, they would have the ability to change it? Or is the royal bureaucracy such an immovable, all-controlling beast that the actual royals themselves have become cogs in its machine - puppets with no influence and no say over how things are done?

It all seems a bit odd.

I think that we are meant to understand that over many generations, the entire culture around the Royal Family has grown toxic. That it is both the bureaucracy and the manner in which the Family lives and chooses to live that is the problem.

They do come across as a type of puppet, although the Queen clearly has a say in how things are done and what she prefers (she doesn't seem to like sharing truly personal ideas and moments with the world in the way that some people do).

What strikes me is that the family traditions of the Queen and her offspring place high value on military service, hunting, public ceremony and duty (rather than creativity, education, participation or commentary on world and local events).

 

[US Royal Watcher]

The early television ratings are in and the program drew 17.1 million viewers, which is more than the combined Emmys and Golden Globe ratings but less than the number of people who saw the debut episode of The Equalizer (a program starring Queen Latifah).
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/08/media/ratings-oprah-meghan-harry/index.html. Caitlyn Jenner's interview with Diane Sawyer had 16.9 million viewers.

 

[MidwestMom]

When I first heard about this interview, I thought it wouldn't end well. The more previews I heard, I was sure of it. The interviews of Diana, Charles and Andrew all backfired, and this one is no exception. Meghan comes off as very naive - she didn't do any research on the BRF? They had to google the words to the national anthem? But the thing that bothers me most is Meghan's claim that she was refused when she asked for help with her mental issues. Just who did she ask? If it was the aides that turned her down, couldn't she have gone higher up? If she didn't want to approach the Queen, how about the Archbishop? As spiritual adviser to the family, surely he could have intervened to find a source of help for her.

The timing of the interview was also questionable. With Prince Philip in the hospital, the Queen is under enough stress already.

I do feel sorry for Archie and the new baby - they will likely grow up being estranged from their father's family, and their mother's family is dysfunctional.

 

[Claire]

I haven't seen the interview yet, but from the quotes it appears Harry and Meghan have different messages. Harry blames the media and feels let down by his family. Meghan blames the media and his family. I wonder how Harry feels about Meghan's message. It's easy to have a common enemy and to blame the media for being racist, but Meghan spread the message that his family are racists. That's probably not the message Harry wanted to send to the world.

If this is not the message that Harry meant to sent to the world then he should stop it - Meghan and Harry knew what they were doing by doing this interview and then purposely telling Oprah that it was not the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh. Childish and immature is not the word for it.

 

[Mbruno]

What strikes me is that the family traditions of the Queen and her offspring place high value on military service, hunting, public ceremony and duty (rather than creativity, education, participation or commentary on world and local events).

"Commentary on world and local events" would be unconstitutional if it compromised the political neutrality of the Crown. Having said that, members of the RF have spoken extensively and on a non-partisan basis on contemporary social issues and, more importantly, have actually done something about it via the charities they support.

Furthermore, the Queen and the PoW in particular, and more recently the DoC, are active participants in world events as they are among the top diplomats on behalf of the United Kingdom (I doubt any living person has met more world leaders and historic figures than QEII for example). Of course, they do so under the supervision and guidance of the democratically elected governments of the United Kingdom, because that is how constitutional monarchies work.


Many Americans, lilke Meghan perhaps, unfortunately have this misconception that royals should be activists or are "free agents", which is exactly the opposite of their constitutional role in Europe.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Interesting to understand from the newly released clip that Harry refers to his father as "the Institution." I have always been one to say that they distinguish between the Firm/ Institution and family members (the "family business" explanation) but it seems evident from this interview that the line does not exist in their minds in many ways. If so, why not just say, "I wrote a letter to the Institution" explaining their intentions- why say, "I wrote a letter to the Institution- my father"? He is conflating the role of Charles, The Prince of Wales and Charles, his father.

 

[Erin9]

If this is true, then she wouldn't need to bring up the "She made me cry" nonsense. lol

Exactly. There was no need to bring this up.

That Meghan felt compelled to do so tells me a lot about her. And it’s not good.

Meghan wants her privacy respected, but has none for anyone else.

 

[Erin9]

This was not at all the impression I got from the interview. I do not think she was trying to portray Catherine as a villain but I do not think she was trying to bury the lede that things were never particularly good between the two of them nor that they are in a good place now. I think Meghan was trying to convey that these are two very different people, that Catherine is a "good person" but that things were never in a great place between them:

• She was specifically asked about Catherine being welcoming towards her. She hesitated and rather than answer whether Catherine was welcoming, hesitated and said something evasive about the family being welcoming.
  
• When asked about pictures that showed the two of them as warm sisters-in-law at Wimbledon, she responded that things were "not as they seemed" (yikes)
  
• At pains to describe the steps he has taken to restore his relationship with his father and brother, Harry never mentioned Catherine, whom he often described as a sister, with whom he was famously close, and whom he has known (literally) most of his life at this point.
  

This is very much in keeping with stories that the two are both good people but not compatible as friends.



But again, I don't think these things were meant to portray Catherine poorly. There is no need to falsely portray a friendship that does not exist.

There is no need to discuss private relationships at all. No one needs to know. Hence why this was a horrible idea.

It’s certainly not nice to hesitate on the question of Catherine being welcoming. And then deflect. (Funny- Catherine was super helpful in the engagement interview.) It doesn’t look good for Catherine. Clearly Catherine didn’t meet Meghan’s expectations. But then- no one did. She’s in excellent company.

Nor is it kind to say the relationship didn’t match appearances. It just sounds bad.

 

[Heavs]

Apparently according to Richard Palmer again Lambeth Palace are also not answering phones. I bet. This is something that's bugging me and it's not even really about H&M but the ABC.

I assume it was something entirely informal but meaningful to them. However if they did recite vows and get proclaimed husband and wife by the ABC then it does present an issue because you can't do it before God twice according to the Church. Even though the signing of the registers with witnesses happened later.

On current topic. Refusing to name the person but narrowing the field is causing even more nastiness than if they had just said "X made an offensive remark" Not to mention that they couldn't get their story exactly straight on this makes it even more unfair.

 

[UglyAmerican]

They had to google the words to the national anthem?

I thought the national anthem thing was strange, too. You probably already know this, but for the benefit of our non-American friends: In 1831, an American wrote new lyrics to the melody used in God Save the Queen, and every American schoolchild knows the song as "My Country, 'Tis of Thee." Just about everyone who grew up in the US can sing at least the first verse and the chorus from memory. Even if she had to google the lyrics to God Save the Queen, learning new lyrics to a familiar tune isn't that big a deal.

 

[TLLK]

Agreed. British public never seemed to like Meghan much anyway. Even Trump was praised by the Guardian readers when he told them to pay for their own security.

This was all about getting American public on their side coz they seemed to have angered them as well when they decided to tell whom they should be voting for. Harry looked SO uncomfortable in that video. Ugh.

Actually Meghan's YouGov favorability rates were good until 2020. Polls showed British public were in favor of the couple's engagement and were not bothered by the fact that she was bi-racial and divorced.


Poll from Nov. 2017 regarding the engagement- https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...rts-british-reaction-prince-harrys-engagement


The couple's popularity drops in Oct. 2020.


https://yougov.co.uk/topics/enterta.../10/28/royal-popularity-harry-and-meghan-drop

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

I thought the national anthem thing was strange, too. You probably already know this, but for the benefit of our non-American friends: In 1831, an American wrote new lyrics to the melody used in God Save the Queen, and every American schoolchild knows the song as "My Country, 'Tis of Thee." Just about everyone who grew up in the US can sing at least the first verse and the chorus from memory. Even if she had to google the lyrics to God Save the Queen, learning new lyrics to a familiar tune isn't that big a deal.

If she had to google the lyrics, are we to understand that Harry does not know them either?

 

[TLLK]

If she had to google the lyrics, are we to understand that Harry does not know them either?

Yes I am curious why she didn't ask her fiance/husband to teach her the lyrics.