The Duke & Duchess of Sussex with Oprah III - Post-Interview, March 9th 2021 -

[US Royal Watcher]

Yes, I have been wondering about what Meghan meant by "potentially."

Oprah said something to the effect: Someone actually wondered if your child would be too dark?

And Meghan replied "potentially."

So did someone say it or was it simply inferred by Harry?

I took Meghan's "potentially" reply to mean that the person wondered if her child would potentially be too dark.

 

[kathia_sophia]

I think we are going to see Harry and Meghan regularly for interviews of this type in the future...Drama gives attention and attention gives money...Also, have they been paid for this interview with Oprah?

 

[Alison H]

Charles only has two sons. That said both son's children should be princes or princesses. If the Queen did it, for one of Charles's sons she should have done it for the other. I don't care about tradition or rules etc. This is the first biracial child in the family and that is another reason Archie should have HRH and be a prince. It looks as if the Queen favors one grandson's children over the other. And then to be told your baby would not have security. Does any realize how all looks? I see H&M's point.

Tradition and rules are rather the point of the monarchy. And why should anyone be given preferential treatment because of their ethnicity?

You may as well say that August Brooksbank, Savannah and Isla Phillips and Mia and Lena Tindall should be made a prince and princesses, as otherwise it would suggest that the Queen favours one grandchild's children over the others. They're just as much the Queen's great-grandchildren as any of Charles's grandchildren are. But they're not in the direct line of succession. That's the way it goes. I don't hear Eugenie or Peter or Zara complaining.

 

[Osipi]

Yes. This isn't about "favouring children or grandchildren", it's about the survival of the institution. The heir and his heirs will always be more important, period. That's the gist of having a monarchy - the HRH, the perks for life, the Givenchy wedding gown, the private jets, the 40 million worth wedding. People regularly forget that while Harry and Meghan have to play second fiddle to William and Kate - and get so much sympathy for this, - everyone else have to play second fiddle to them until William's children grew up. That's how it works in a monarchy and that keeps it - and the perks - going. This isn't a Republic of Royals reigning over a republic.


To be fair, I never believed in Harry and Meghan's lasting stardom, popularity or whatever it's called. They were a new couple and she was regarded as a breath of fresh air. By this time, the Cambridges were long settled into boring married life. It was natural for the "sun" to shine on the newlyweds. It was the same with Sarah and Andrew. And it would have played out the same way, had Harry and Meghan not decided to leave.


It's how a monarchy works.

Along with what you've explained, another point I'd like to make is that the "Firm" aka the monarchy does not and cannot decide who gets security or doesn't get security. That is totally up to the Metropolitan Police Protection Command which is funded by taxpayers. They assess and assign protection after examining the risk factor for a certain person. We can't blame the Queen or the "Firm" for any lack of security Archie would ever have in his lifetime as a son of senior working royals.

The Metropolitan Police Protection Squad is not a global protection force either. They have no jurisdiction outside of the UK. They do, however, provide protection for their British charges that travel out of the country and all expenses for their hotels, meals, airfare etc. are met by the British taxpayer.

 

[AC21091968]

YouGov has published an article analysing polls on the topic of Oprah's interview and treatment of Harry & Meghan. Three questions were asked from 8th-9th March with 4654 British adults being surveyed, which includes:

• When it comes to the dispute between the Royal Family and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan), with whom do your sympathies mostly lie?
• From what you have read and heard, do you think the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan) have been treated fairly or unfairly by the Royal Family?
• Do you think being a member of the Royal Family is more of a privilege or more of a burden?

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...1/03/09/snap-poll-post-interview-harry-meghan

PDF of the full results including breakdowns: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/usmfbongyx/SnapPoll_Royals_March9th.pdf

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

Charles only has two sons. That said both son's children should be princes or princesses. If the Queen did it, for one of Charles's sons she should have done it for the other. I don't care about tradition or rules etc. This is the first biracial child in the family and that is another reason Archie should have HRH and be a prince. It looks as if the Queen favors one grandson's children over the other. And then to be told your baby would not have security. Does any realize how all looks? I see H&M's point.

The problem is that Harry and Meghan seem to have trouble differentiating between the monarchy and private familial relationships. Within the monarchy, there is a hierarchical system - just like in many other places. For instance, the Vice President of the US is not equal to the President. They're just not, and it's the same here.

Harry is not equal to William, Meghan is not equal to Catherine and Archie is not equal to George, Charlotte and Louis (Charlotte is not equal to George either, and even Louis is not equal to Charlotte, "spare" of her generation). They don't have the same positions, and advantages as well as disadvantages of their positions will naturally differ.

Within the monarchy, there are actually two groups of the Queen's great-grandchildren right now.
A: George, Charlotte & Louis
B: Savannah, Isla, Mia, Lena, August & Archie (so it's not like Archie is specifically singled out or disadvantaged in not being made a Prince)

That is the monarchy. In a personal capacity, I am sure that the Queen is a loving great-grandmother to all her great-grandchildren and does not favor one over the other.

There are other biracial children in the BRF, by the way, Lady Davina Windsor's children.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I'm getting the distinct feeling that Harry is finding out exactly what the word "freedom" means. It's going to mean adjusting his life, his actions and his attitude towards being an adult able to stand on his own two feet. Living in the US, he's living in a place where there's no deference to a person because they were born "royal". There is no such thing either as a free lunch. He's always had "people" that protected him, made decisions for him, carried money for him and that bubble has now burst. He's not only responsible for his own self and well being but also for the health and well being of a wife and child with another child on the way. What does he really have right now to fall back on? What is his safety net when things go bump in the night?

Interesting, Osipi, because for Meghan it was the complete opposite. She wasn't used to having people make decisions, carry money, etc. so she was floundering as a member of the royal family.

It's really very sad and I hope it ends well for everyone and that Harry and Meghan will find peace and never need a safety net. But if they do need a safety net, I honestly feel that Harry's family loves him and the door is open, but they will not enable him. If I'm wrong, he will have to rely on himself, like so many people in the world, with a lot fewer material advantages.

 

[Curryong]

I think we are going to see Harry and Meghan regularly for interviews of this type in the future...Drama gives attention and attention gives money...Also, have they been paid for this interview with Oprah?

It was announced previous to it being aired that Harry and Meghan were not paid for the interview. The couple have also stated that they will not be speaking publicly about their time as working royals again.

 

[Alison H]

Random thought - I'd love to know what the Spencers make of it all. They're just as much Harry's family as the Royals are. Is he in touch with them? How do they get on with Meghan?

 

[Alisa]

The statement by the Queen was brilliant and very diplomatic. Not that I would expect anything less.

My only critique is that I wonder-though how do they as a family address racial issues and do so privately? It is simply not possible to do.

Over the years we've have Philip's numerous racists comments that have been well documented.
Harry himself in the early 2000s publicly uttered racial slurs- calling someone a "Paki" and the notorious Hitler costume
2 winters ago Princess Michael notoriously wore her black face jewelry to a party attended by Harry & Meghan.

Who knows of other instances that the public knows nothing of.

One thing that definitely cannot happen now is for Harry &Meghan to loose their titles and/or HRH. I would suggest that the Queen authorizes for a diverse independent group investigate the allegations that the couple made. Were they infact denied access to mental health help during Meghan's moment of crisis, why weren't hurtful stories about Meghan officially refuted while other royals were, who made the racists comments..etc.

It maybe that the findings reveals startling information requiring the Queen and senior courtiers to "clean house" so to speak or come up with some plan to hold "principals" accountable when they are wrong.

 

[Somebody]

Charles only has two sons. That said both son's children should be princes or princesses. If the Queen did it, for one of Charles's sons she should have done it for the other. I don't care about tradition or rules etc. This is the first biracial child in the family and that is another reason Archie should have HRH and be a prince. It looks as if the Queen favors one grandson's children over the other. And then to be told your baby would not have security. Does any realize how all looks? I see H&M's point.

Just for clarification; are you implying/arguing that Harry and Meghan's children should be titled because they are biracial? So, if Harry had married Chelsy or Cressida, it would have been ok if for his children the current LPs had been followed (and potentially issue a new one so in the future only the children of heirs in the direct line will be HRH) but because Meghan is biracial her children should be entitled to a title they wouldn't have had otherwise? While in certain circumstances I welcome positive discrimination (to balance out un/subconcious bias), I don't think the titles in the royal family should work that way.

We don't know what was allegedly said, we don't know the context, and we don't know who allegedly said it. It was completely inappropriate for Harry to create a situation like this. Would you send round an e-mail saying that "someone" in your workplace or someone in your class at school had made racist remarks to you, knowing that then everyone would be speculating and fingers would be being unjustly pointed at various different people? It's not appropriate to tell half a story, knowing that it'll lead to a lot of people falling under suspicion.

My take is that it wasn't Harry who created that situation but Meghan. Apparently Harry had to indirectly correct his wife on international television to somewhat explain what truly happened. Clearly not the version that his wife wanted the public to believe: there was NO link between Archie's racial background and his position or title in the family (and rightly so). Why that one family member brought it up (because of concern for how the public might respond, not understanding how this would be a sensitive topic, or because that person was genuinely worried (which would be concerning)) we don't know.

 

[AC21091968]

More politicians have weighed in on the Oprah's interview, but these happened before the Palace statement was released

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the House of Commons & Lord President of the Council was asked about Harry & Meghan interview with Oprah on Moggcast, his fortnightly podcast on Conservative Home (British right-wing blog, independent of the Conservative Party). He mentioned that The Queen is loved and the royal family and monarchy are not damaged by this interview. In terms of constitutional issues, as mentioned by posters here, he said that Parliament legalisation could take Dukedom of Sussex away. He also talked about Archie & his sisters' title and the 1917's LP. He did however miss The Queen's 2012 amendment on giving all Cambridge children HRH Prince/Princess (but then podcast is coming to the end). He did not watch the Oprah's interview, because he doesn't have the ITV/Sky licence, but personally I think he's just too tired and no bothered to watch, especially with six children

The relevant part starts at 23:04

The Times have picked up what Jacob Ress-Mogg said in Conservative Home's Moggcast

HARRY AND MEGHAN INTERVIEW
Jacob Rees-Mogg says Queen is ‘loved’ and will remain popular
Harry and Meghan interview ‘won’t damage royal family or monarchy’
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...en-is-loved-and-will-remain-popular-l309sv02w

Steve Brine, former public health minister and Conservative MP for Winchester appeared on Times Radio saying that he's not surprise that government minister choose not to take sides on royal family conflicts. He also suggested that White House should have done the same.

Times Radio @TimesRadio
Steve Brine, former public health minister, says Harry and Meghan were ''used'' by Oprah.
'There is only one winner out of this interview, that is the potential presidential candidate Oprah Winfrey.'
Listen Speaker with three sound waves http://times.radio/listen
@JPonpolitics | @BrineMP​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1369354801885057024

 

[ACO]

Random thought - I'd love to know what the Spencers make of it all. They're just as much Harry's family as the Royals are. Is he in touch with them? How do they get on with Meghan?

Seems Harry and Meghan are quite close to his aunts. And Meghan mentioned she was talking to one of Diana's friends. So I think they are much closer to the Spencers than the Windsors.

 

[Somebody]

The statement by the Queen was brilliant and very diplomatic. Not that I would expect anything less.

My only critique is that I wonder-though how do they as a family address racial issues and do so privately? It is simply not possible to do.

Over the years we've have Philip's numerous racists comments that have been well documented.
Harry himself in the early 2000s publicly uttered racial slurs- calling someone a "Paki" and the notorious Hitler costume
2 winters ago Princess Michael notoriously wore her black face jewelry to a party attended by Harry & Meghan.

Who knows of other instances that the public knows nothing of.

One thing that definitely cannot happen now is for Harry &Meghan to loose their titles and/or HRH. I would suggest that the Queen authorizes for a diverse independent group investigate the allegations that the couple made. Were they infact denied access to mental health help during Meghan's moment of crisis, why weren't hurtful stories about Meghan officially refuted while other royals were, who made the racists comments..etc.

It maybe that the findings reveals startling information requiring the Queen and senior courtiers to "clean house" so to speak or come up with some plan to hold "principals" accountable when they are wrong.

They might want to privately address H&M's description of what they considered based on race (such as Archie not getting a title); explaining again that it is completely unrelated. And might want to figure out what was exactly said in that one conversation that took place several years ago but made a lasting impact on Harry. It might have been memorable to the family member as well or that person might have no clue that something inappropriate was said. Not sure how addressing these issues publicly would help.

Regarding Meghan's mental health crisis, they didn't promise to look into it; so maybe they already know what instance that was about. Based on Harry's comments it seems that they never told members of the royal family (hence the statement that they are saddened to learn of the extend of their challenges; if I remember it correctly a similar sentiment was expressed after the South-Africa interview); so that would be about a member of staff that might have even been asked to keep it private who may only have come forward with their version of the event (for example "she never referred to suicidal thoughts" but I recall her one time asking whether she could go abroad for some time to seek help dealing with the pressure she was under - and recommended she discuss the issue with X as it was outside of my scope of work).

N.B. I applaud the queen (and her staff) for the statement. A very restraint response clearly with the intent of de-escalation while still getting the message across that we only heard one perspective of the story which doesn't necessarily correspond with the truth/how the BRF perceived it. Unfortunately the Dutch press wasn't as nuanced stating that the BRF was saddened to learn how Harry & Meghan felt they had been treated - and how the queen was troubled about the racism allegations.

 

[Kellydofc]

Charles only has two sons. That said both son's children should be princes or princesses. If the Queen did it, for one of Charles's sons she should have done it for the other. I don't care about tradition or rules etc. This is the first biracial child in the family and that is another reason Archie should have HRH and be a prince. It looks as if the Queen favors one grandson's children over the other. And then to be told your baby would not have security. Does any realize how all looks? I see H&M's point.

Actually, if I'm correct the first biracial children in the family are in fact the grandchildren of Richard, Duke of Gloucester. The two girls are half Maori. This is of course leaving aside the question of if Queen Charlotte was biracial. I'm sure you mean the first in the immediate visible family but those two girls are there and they are in the line of succession.

I am sorry but I don't think Archie should have gotten special treatment and that is what it would have been. The LP giving George et al their titles was made before George's birth incase he was a girl, because if he was and William and Kate's second child had been a boy based on the AofS of 1907 the second child would have outranked the first. And given that there is now birth order succession that meant the future Queen would have been outranked by her brother. That is the ONLY reason why the LP was issued and all three of the Cambridge children have the title Prince(ss). There were no such issues when Archie was born so there was no need to make any special LP for him. I understand you don't see it that way but they can't just throw out rules and traditions whenever they want. That is not how monarchies work. They're not equal, there is a hierarchy, there are rules and traditions, that is how they function.

 

[AC21091968]

Actually, if I'm correct the first biracial children in the family are in fact the grandchildren of Richard, Duke of Gloucester. The two girls are half Maori. This is of course leaving aside the question of if Queen Charlotte was biracial. I'm sure you mean the first in the immediate visible family but those two girls are there and they are in the line of succession.

I am sorry but I don't think Archie should have gotten special treatment and that is what it would have been. The LP giving George et al their titles was made before George's birth incase he was a girl, because if he was and William and Kate's second child had been a boy based on the AofS of 1907 the second child would have outranked the first. And given that there is now birth order succession that meant the future Queen would have been outranked by her brother. That is the ONLY reason why the LP was issued and all three of the Cambridge children have the title Prince(ss). There were no such issues when Archie was born so there was no need to make any special LP for him. I understand you don't see it that way but they can't just throw out rules and traditions whenever they want. That is not how monarchies work. They're not equal, there is a hierarchy, there are rules and traditions, that is how they function.

You're correct and without sounding pedantic and rude, Lady Davina Windsor and Gary Lewis (sadly now divorced) have a son and daughter with Maori names. Co-incidentally, Senna Kowhai Lewis (b. 22 June 2010) and Tāne Mahuta Lewis (b. 25 May 2012) were the first ones (in terms of nearest relative to the sovereign) to be affected by the Succession of the Crown Act in 2015. Before this, Tāne was in front of his older sister Senna. When they were living in New Zealand, most neighbours and Gary Lewis' family & friends do not know about Lady Davina's royal background. They were nicknamed Denny and Gazza.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't know if that has already been discussed (only saw the news now), but apparently Piers Morgan has been canceled after saying he didn't believe a word of what Meghan said about her mental health.

 

[Lucy Scot]

roseroyal said (in the prior thread):

“Whoa.. I thought the Queen ran the show. Sounds like there’s one person running the show and the Queen and whoever they are they need to go!”

Yes, Harry was referring to the men in gray who told the Queen to cancel her lunch with Harry.

For those who did not watch the video, Harry said he was invited by the Queen to have lunch and dinner with her when he arrived back in England. When he got there, he got a message that the lunch and dinner with Granny were cancelled. He called her from Frogmore Cottage and she told him that she had a meeting that she had forgotten about. When he asked about the rest of the week, she told him that she was too busy to see him. Harry said he did not push her because he knew what was happening. That it was regrettable that she was taking the advice of others and it made him sad because some of the advice was really bad.

This story was reported in the newspapers at the time and it was said that the men in gray were afraid that the Queen might agree to some of Harry’s wishes about his stepping away from royal duties because she is a softie when it comes to her grandchildren.

I agree with Harry that it is a sad story that he was prevented from seeing his grandmother.

 

[Moran]

Along with what you've explained, another point I'd like to make is that the "Firm" aka the monarchy does not and cannot decide who gets security or doesn't get security. That is totally up to the Metropolitan Police Protection Command which is funded by taxpayers. They assess and assign protection after examining the risk factor for a certain person. We can't blame the Queen or the "Firm" for any lack of security Archie would ever have in his lifetime as a son of senior working royals.

The Metropolitan Police Protection Squad is not a global protection force either. They have no jurisdiction outside of the UK. They do, however, provide protection for their British charges that travel out of the country and all expenses for their hotels, meals, airfare etc. are met by the British taxpayer.

Thank you. I suppose it's more cost effective this way, apart from freeing up protective officers for other purposes where the level of danger is deemed low. As we know, this kind of thing isn't cheap. I remember the clamouring when Beatrice and Eugenie lost their protection and let's face it, without a level of danger, Archie is less entitled to protection than they were. At the time, the girls were 5th and 6th in line for the throne. Archie was 7th at the time the decision was made.


I can't fathom how anyone could actually think that the protection is tied to the HRH. Even if we leave the line in succession bit alone, the fact is that Bea and Eugenie are HRHs without security details. I'd expect of Harry and Meghan to be informed about this - as their February 2020 statement showed, they are rather informed about the dealings and situations of "other titled members of the royal family". I firmly refuse to believe Meghan didn't know it when she tied the two things to each other.

 

[poppy7]

roseroyal said (in the prior thread):

“Whoa.. I thought the Queen ran the show. Sounds like there’s one person running the show and the Queen and whoever they are they need to go!”

Yes, Harry was referring to the men in gray who told the Queen to cancel her lunch with Harry.

For those who did not watch the video, Harry said he was invited by the Queen to have lunch and dinner with her when he arrived back in England. When he got there, he got a message that the lunch and dinner with Granny were cancelled. He called her from Frogmore Cottage and she told him that she had a meeting that she had forgotten about. When he asked about the rest of the week, she told him that she was too busy to see him. Harry said he did not push her because he knew what was happening. That it was regrettable that she was taking the advice of others and it made him sad because some of the advice was really bad.

This story was reported in the newspapers at the time and it was said that the men in gray were afraid that the Queen might agree to some of Harry’s wishes about his stepping away from royal duties because she is a softie when it comes to her grandchildren.

I agree with Harry that it is a sad story that he was prevented from seeing his grandmother.

I think in fairness Harry wasn't going to see her as a Grandmother but as a vehicle to get what he wanted. The Queen is in her 90s, it is obvious that at this stage she is not the one running the family. It's Charles. I think it was good advice to her. Harry would have tried and railroaded her. She thought he as probably coming for the weekend to see her like lots of the grandchidren do in January.

The one running the show is Charles and his private secretary...whose name escapes me but he isn't that popular.

 

[Kellydofc]

You're correct and without sounding pedantic, Lady Davina Windsor and Gary Lewis (sadly now divorced) have a son and daughter with Maori names. Co-incidentally, Senna Kowhai Lewis (b. 22 June 2010) and Tāne Mahuta Lewis(25 May 2012) were the first ones (in terms of nearest relative to the sovereign) to be affected by the Succession of the Crown Act in 2015. Before this, Tāne was in front of his older sister Senna. When they were living in New Zealand, most neighbours and Gary Lewis' family & friends do not know about Lady Davina's royal background. They were nicknamed Denny and Gazza.

I apologize, I don't know why I thought Lady Davina and Gary Lewis had two daughters. I did remember they had divorced. I was sorry about that.

 

[ACO]

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/meghan-markle-prince-harry-oprah-winfrey-cbs-interview-1234924750/

CBS scores massive ratings. They are re-airing the interview next week.

 

[Kellydofc]

roseroyal said (in the prior thread):

“Whoa.. I thought the Queen ran the show. Sounds like there’s one person running the show and the Queen and whoever they are they need to go!”

Yes, Harry was referring to the men in gray who told the Queen to cancel her lunch with Harry.

For those who did not watch the video, Harry said he was invited by the Queen to have lunch and dinner with her when he arrived back in England. When he got there, he got a message that the lunch and dinner with Granny were cancelled. He called her from Frogmore Cottage and she told him that she had a meeting that she had forgotten about. When he asked about the rest of the week, she told him that she was too busy to see him. Harry said he did not push her because he knew what was happening. That it was regrettable that she was taking the advice of others and it made him sad because some of the advice was really bad.

This story was reported in the newspapers at the time and it was said that the men in gray were afraid that the Queen might agree to some of Harry’s wishes about his stepping away from royal duties because she is a softie when it comes to her grandchildren.

I agree with Harry that it is a sad story that he was prevented from seeing his grandmother.

I highly doubt anyone would have stopped Elizabeth from seeing her grandson if she had wanted.

 

[AC21091968]

I apologize, I don't know why I thought Lady Davina had two daughters. I did remember she and her husband had divorced. I was sorry about that.

No you're right. There is no need to apologise. You're response was great ?

I personally did not know much about the current Gloucester's family, particularly Lady Davina, Lady Rose and Earl of Ulster, until reading this forum and flicking through wikipedia. Lady Rose Gilman does not have her own wikipedia page and I don't think they have social media accounts. I guess the Gloucesters are keeping a more low profile compared to the Kents.

I did previously know about Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester serving as a Governor General of Australia, Prince William of Gloucester's tragic death and the current Duke of Gloucester's early architect career.

 

[Harald]

Piers Morgan has left ITV's Good Morning Britain following a row over comments he made about Meghan.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56334082

 

[Leopoldine]

Meghan's costar from Suits, Wendell Pierce, slammed the interview:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ll-Pierce-slams-Harry-interview-pandemic.html


The Bunk!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Random thought - I'd love to know what the Spencers make of it all. They're just as much Harry's family as the Royals are. Is he in touch with them? How do they get on with Meghan?

The Earl Spencer and his older children...with whom Harry was once close...have been markedly close mouthed ever since Harry met Meghan. I would LOVE to hear from Earl Spencer.

 

[Sunnystar]

Or perhaps the Queen knew she was an old softie with her grandkids and told her private secretary to give her a good reason to not be available to see Harry after she initially agreed.

Or maybe Philip (who was rumored to be incandescent with Harry & Meghan's website stunt) told her "no, you don’t need to see them."

Heaven forbid someone agree to a meeting and then, upon a bit of reflection, decide that isn't the best course of action.

 

[ladongas]

Piers Morgan has left ITV's Good Morning Britain following a row over comments he made about Meghan.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56334082

What a pleasant surprise!

 

[Alisa]

Regarding Meghan's mental health crisis, they didn't promise to look into it; so maybe they already know what instance that was about. Based on Harry's comments it seems that they never told members of the royal family (hence the statement that they are saddened to learn of the extend of their challenges; if I remember it correctly a similar sentiment was expressed after the South-Africa interview); so that would be about a member of staff that might have even been asked to keep it private who may only have come forward with their version of the event (for example "she never referred to suicidal thoughts" but I recall her one time asking whether she could go abroad for some time to seek help dealing with the pressure she was under - and recommended she discuss the issue with X as it was outside of my scope of work).
.

Meghan said that she went to one of the "most senior palace officials'" and asked if she could go somewhere to get help and was denied because it was not a good look. Meghan also said that she went to the HR department and said plainly "I need help" and was denied. Such a response for all intents and purposes needs to be investigated- if what Meghan says turns out to be true then there needs to be alot of work done on revamping policies and procedures
for when a member of the royal family needs and is seeking help.