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

[US Royal Watcher]

Why should they forgive her? She didn't forgive her family. And she did the same thing to the royals they did to her

I feel very sure the royal family is angry but they've been through things like this before. Charles has publicly complained that his parents were cold and distant (although he never implied they were bad people). I believe despite all the public disagreements, the royal family is very loving and forgiving.

 

[Lee-Z]

...
Fergie lost her security when she divorced.. but Diana kept hers although she wasn't considered a workign royal but she was a high profile and deemed to be at risk....

Maybe that's at the base of the story, imo Harry very much identifies with his mother: popular with the people but misunderstood, mistreated and unsupported by the royal family, haunted by the press, and we know what happened with Diana, even if she had security...

Maybe Harry sees himself in that same position and is convinced that by denying security and not helping against the media, the RF 'letting him' risk ending in the same way...

tragic ofcourse if he is, but it would explain his view of things, and him feeling justified in attacking the RF

as said before: i just wish they had a friend who helped them see all the positiv they can do and focus on that..
I'm still of the opinion that going public with a onesided interview has never helped anyone

 

[Denville]

I feel very sure the royal family is angry but they've been through things like this before. Charles has publicly complained that his parents were cold and distant (although he never implied they were bad people). I believe despite all the public disagreements, the royal family is very loving and forgiving.

Its one thing to forgive Harry but MEghan?

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Its one thing to forgive Harry but MEghan?

I don't know but Meghan is Harry's wife and the mother of his children.

 

[Hallo girl]

Meghan will ghost the royal family along with all her own family members. There is a bit of a common thread going on here.

 

[Queen Ester]

The Duke of Cambridge has made some comments during his first official engagement after the interview:

Being asked "Is the Royal Family a racist family, sir?" he answered:

"We're very much not a racist family". And that he replied he had not spoken to his brother since the interview "but will do":

See here: ** dailymail article **

He did handle the question very well, did not show his anger, and said that he was planning on having a talk with Harry

 

[Queen Ester]

I do think that this Netflix deal is not going to go well. Does Harry really have ideas for documentaries etc? Or will it all be Meghan? As you say, its probably come as a shock to him in the past year that he had to pay for security himself, pay his staff, pay the decorators and so on...(that's probably what freaked him out and drove him to ranting at Dad adn asking for more money)...
and if he and Meg don't have ideas or they dont do well, will Netflix continue with the deal?

We don't know anything about the contract, does it a time frame within which they have to produce, or does it depend on what they produce. I am not sure Netflix can get out of the contract easily and neither can they.

I do think that this Netflix deal is not going to go well. Does Harry really have ideas for documentaries etc? Or will it all be Meghan? As you say, its probably come as a shock to him in the past year that he had to pay for security himself, pay his staff, pay the decorators and so on...(that's probably what freaked him out and drove him to ranting at Dad adn asking for more money)...
and if he and Meg don't have ideas or they dont do well, will Netflix continue with the deal?

I think that they should concentrate on the Netflix deal and actually produce something, instead of wasting time on the Oprah interview, time is money in Hollywood, and Netflix is not going to wait forever for their product. Unless they are planning to include this interview into some content for Netflix, I think it was a waste of time.

 

[Osipi]

A new kind of throne

It had to happen. The "thrones" that Harry and Meghan sat on during their Oprah interview have been sold out. Ironically, there are ties to the entertainment world with these garden "thrones". The furniture, from Christopher Knight Brands, sold out after it was prominently displayed during Sunday night's bombshell interview. For those that do not recognize the name Christopher Knight, he was the middle son, Peter Brady in "The Brady Bunch".

Thrones and Knights... oh my!

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/11/business/oprah-patio-chairs-christopher-knight/index.html

 

[duchessrachel]

I did not pick up on this statement before, but in the transcript of the interview there is this exchange between Harry and Oprah. In this statement, what do you think Harry means by "removing everything"?

Oprah: Your exit agreement with the Royal Family, it's...that is coming up at the end of this month.

Harry: The decision is, I think. Yeah, I mean, the decision -- what, as of last week, or whatever it was--is that they will be removing everything.

That is correct. The RPOs work for the Metropolitan Police and not for the royals, themselves.

Thank you.

Generally speaking yes. Of course the queen and heir and their consorts will always have security.. because by the very nature of their position they are high risk. Harry as a working royal and an ex solider would be high risk while working - but that might change over time. Andrew I think has lost his security now that he's not a working royal. So did Bea and Eugenie.. they weren't considered high risk and economies needed to be made.
Fergie lost her security when she divorced.. but Diana kept hers although she wasn't considered a workign royal but she was a high profile and deemed to be at risk....

Thank you.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Meghan will ghost the royal family along with all her own family members. There is a bit of a common thread going on here.

I don't think so. I was one of those who really thought that Meghan was terrific. She had a serene manner, is very intelligent, and seemed kind. Now, I see what the detractors were concerned about.

She could have kept quiet but having a voice seems very important to her. The royal family is responsible for her fame and fortune. I think she wants to attend major events, like the Jubilee. They are being very careful to keep their relationship with the Queen and I think that will continue. Charles ascension is probably years away. I think they will patch things up before that happens.

 

[Heavs]

I did not pick up on this statement before, but in the transcript of the interview there is this exchange between Harry and Oprah. In this statement, what do you think Harry means by "removing everything"?

Oprah: Your exit agreement with the Royal Family, it's...that is coming up at the end of this month.

Harry: The decision is, I think. Yeah, I mean, the decision -- what, as of last week, or whatever it was--is that they will be removing everything.

What was announced, their royal patronages and positions that they wanted to keep - part of being half in, half out.

They got to keep the private ones like Smart Works and Invictus etc.

 

[stunking]

Oprah is a professional her staff had plenty of time to fact check Meghan Markle's statements. Instead she ran with what brought "the best TV". I tuned into CBS and observed Oprah and Gail King going over the "Markle's racist remarks like a couple of old hens." I disagree with this as there is no conversation or person accused, but great TV.

 

[Somebody]

If you go on the born into the Royal Family argument for security then ALL the royals deserve it. Clearly they don't go by that rule. Princess Anne works more than most royals and she doesn't have her own security. This is a HUGE reason why the "I was born royal" holds no weight with me.

So were loads of other royals. Royals who are still working royals. Royals who only get security when they are at events. Yet none of them have complained except Andrew and Harry.

It is not JUST about being born in the royal family. IF someone needs security BECAUSE he was born into the royal family THAN the question is whether it would be reasonable if it is (partly) paid for. If someone doesn't need security, it is irrelevant whether they were born a member of the royal family or not because there are no security costs to incur.

Apparently, Henry still needed security... otherwise there was no reason to no longer pay the security he received... I am personally undecided on this issue but I do think that if his security concerns directly result from him being a member of the royal family (and not or only limitedly because of his own behavior), it begs the question whether he should receive at least a partial compensation (but not sure from whom).

 

[DukeOfAster]

Thank you.

 

[amaryllus]

@Osipi

You are right. Harry has no concept of money: spending wisely, saving for a rainy day or putting off buying what he wants simply because it was never an issue. Much less how hard it is to earn, how hard the normal person works and how to just earn.

Whereas a normal person splurge is maybe a fancy dinner at a steak house and a trip to the mall Harry might go to the most expensive A list steak place and buy dinner and drinks for all his friends and then go buy an expensive diamond necklace for Meghan and then the checks come and the bills come and he is shocked and confused. Just never thought about stopping.

And I highly doubt Meghan is the wiser head here don’t you?

 

[Hallo girl]

I don't think so. I was one of those who really thought that Meghan was terrific. She had a serene manner, is very intelligent, and seemed kind. Now, I see what the detractors were concerned about.

She could have kept quiet but having a voice seems very important to her. The royal family is responsible for her fame and fortune. I think she wants to attend major events, like the Jubilee. They are being very careful to keep their relationship with the Queen and I think that will continue. Charles ascension is probably years away. I think they will patch things up before that happens.

I take your point, I also had a great deal of admiration for them both at the beginning.
The connection is their fortune.

 

[Osipi]

@Osipi

You are right. Harry has no concept of money: spending wisely, saving for a rainy day or putting off buying what he wants simply because it was never an issue. Much less how hard it is to earn, how hard the normal person works and how to just earn.

Whereas a normal person splurge is maybe a fancy dinner at a steak house and a trip to the mall Harry might go to the most expensive A list steak place and buy dinner and drinks for all his friends and then go buy an expensive diamond necklace for Meghan and then the checks come and the bills come and he is shocked and confused. Just never thought about stopping.

And I highly doubt Meghan is the wiser head here don’t you?

Meghan has more experience and knowledge of actually working and paying her own bills and paying taxes and maybe even balancing a checkbook but on the scale which they're choosing to live now, I don't think either one of them really know the enormity of what they've taken on. ?

 

[Somebody]

Archie's security would be based on need.. as a child Since Harry had security as a senior royal and a former soldier, his children would share in that security while still small. Meghan is talkng nonsese, she is trying to imply that A's security was dependent on his having a title.. of prince and that he would not get it because he was mixed race. Probably at the age of 18, even if H stayed in the RF, Archie would not have security.

The only reasonable explanation I can come up with for the link between HRH and security is that someone might have pointed out that him not being an HRH would be advantageous in terms of the need for security as he is less likely to attract attention to himself (compare: Beatrice & Eugenie versus Louise & James).

 

[Hallo girl]

I don't know but Meghan is Harry's wife and the mother of his children.

I think it might be trust rather than forgive.

She has revealed details from within the family. Also the threats have been put out there that there are e mails and texts.
Not nice.

 

[UglyAmerican]

Apparently, Henry still needed security... otherwise there was no reason to no longer pay the security he received... I am personally undecided on this issue but I do think that if his security concerns directly result from him being a member of the royal family (and not or only limitedly because of his own behavior), it begs the question whether he should receive at least a partial compensation (but not sure from whom).

I think in that case, it might be reasonable to reimburse him for whatever his security would cost if he lived a quiet, private life at Frogmore, which no one's stopping them from doing. But that's also true of Anne's and Andrew's and Edward's children, who haven't done anything particularly expensive or controversial, but are still on the hook for their own security if they want it (or will be once they turn 18). Maybe the threat to Harry is higher, but it's hard to quantify how much of that is because of his birth and how much is because of his actions. Most Americans wouldn't recognize any of the Queen's other grandchildren if they ran into them on the street.

 

[Durham]

I think it might be trust rather than forgive.

She has revealed details from within the family. Also the threats have been put out there that there are e mails and texts.
Not nice.

What about?

 

[Somebody]

THey never had an offer of the "Prince" title.. Archie will be a HRH PRince when his grandfather becomes King.. unless by then Harry rejects the whole idea of royal titles.
they chose not to use Harry's secondary title of Lord Dumbarton for A.
but I doubt if it was really because they wanted to live like normal people.. they were just trying to pretend. (or maybe they were sulking becuase they HADNT been offered HRH for Archie.. and were like "oh well we wont let him use ANY title."

That's what it indeed sounds like: "If we can't have it all, we will take none of it and he will be plain master Archie. How do you like that?" And the BRF was "Fine, if that's your wish, we will announce it."

Someone mentioned that the announcement stated that they refused the HRH and that that were lies - but that of course is not what the statement said as he wasn't eligible for that title and you cannot refuse something you aren't given; so no lies either. They chose not to use the courtesy title of 'Earl of Dumbarton' (unlike for example James who is formally known as 'Viscount Severn') which he was entitled to.

 

[Heavs]

Apparently, Henry still needed security... otherwise there was no reason to no longer pay the security he received... I am personally undecided on this issue but I do think that if his security concerns directly result from him being a member of the royal family (and not or only limitedly because of his own behavior), it begs the question whether he should receive at least a partial compensation (but not sure from whom).

I think if the Met or another threat analysis team said "Sir, your son is in critical need of security. it's life or death!" Because of his high profile, wife and army service, Charles would probably still be paying it.

Especially Harry really couldn't afford it.

The place they're living in keeps out a lot of threats anyway, and I bet comes with a state of the art security system and panic room (or could be fitted out with one). There were rumours that Charles helped them out with the purchase of the house as well and that was his final gift to them.

And he did pay for a year, which was apparently agreed upon and after that the trial run was up. How long should he or the tax payers keep funding their security in a very expensive place when they've made their own choices and prioritised a large house in one of the most exclusive, expensive places in the US over a house in a less expensive but still nice area? IF they'd done that then they could maybe afford security and have more spending money left over.

I am sympathetic to their concerns, definitely, I'd be worried if I was them but I don't think they've been left entirely defenceless, just upset that they have to pay for themselves. And there are a lot of very vulnerable people at risk who could never afford any type of security and wouldn't be offered it by the police.

 

[Somebody]

Government employees who have service passports usually surrender those passports for storage at their respective department or agency. That is because they are only supposed to use those passports on official trips. I don't think Meghan's situation is exactly the same, but it is possible that members of RF who are issued official passports don't keep those passports with themselves all the time, but give it to some department within the Royal Household for safekeeping and collect it only when needed. It would be odd if Meghan was also asked to surrender her personal U.S. passport, but I don't think she would lie about that.

Anyway, I suspect the Palace most likely was only following some kind of standard procedure with respect to official passports, but, since we don't know all the facts (for example, if Meghan was also told not to use her personal passport anymore), it would be good if the Royal Household could provide some clarification.

Would she have been eligible to a UK diplomatic passport without being a UK citizen? How does that normally work? I assume some ambassadors might also have a spouse who is not from the country s/he is representing.

 

[Alisa]

I don't get what they thought would happen when they quit. They act like they were told to leave.

In their minds they probably felt like they were. Pressures from within and outside probably made it feel that way.

I feel very sure the royal family is angry but they've been through things like this before. Charles has publicly complained that his parents were cold and distant (although he never implied they were bad people). I believe despite all the public disagreements, the royal family is very loving and forgiving.

Agreed wholeheartedly!!! They've survived worse scandals- they'll be just fine!

 

[Durham]

Questions over some possible sharp practise by Oprah Winfrey:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...rket-tabloid-celebrity-gossip-magazines-used/

 

[tommy100]

I wonder if they would have got security if they stayed in the UK more - there had to be an element of cost vs benefit (no matter how harsh that sounds) when looking at their security. In the UK providing protection would have been undoubtedly cheaper to start then factor in their main UK residence is on the already protected Windsor estate and has undergone various security enhancements. They could have gone without 24hr protection via guards around their house and relied on technology. They could have easily tapped into existing officers as/when needed for big events etc but not had a permanent team. The threat may have been bigger as more people know H&M in the UK. Contrast that to being 'another celebrity couple' in America that the majority of Americans couldn't recognise - especially before this interview - making their need for security lower and costs higher as another house is fitted out with alarms, cameras and other technology, the cost of keeping a team of UK officers based nearby permanently 'just in case' and to go out and about with them. Its just too much especially for two people who chose to walk away from the RF and officially representing the crown.

 

[Somebody]

I think in that case, it might be reasonable to reimburse him for whatever his security would cost if he lived a quiet, private life at Frogmore, which no one's stopping them from doing. But that's also true of Anne's and Andrew's and Edward's children, who haven't done anything particularly expensive or controversial, but are still on the hook for their own security if they want it (or will be once they turn 18). Maybe the threat to Harry is higher, but it's hard to quantify how much of that is because of his birth and how much is because of his actions. Most Americans wouldn't recognize any of the Queen's other grandchildren if they ran into them on the street.

That was indeed what I was wondering about. I assume the other members (at least the working senior royals - not sure about Andrew's current arrangements) only have to come in for security not deemed essential by the MET.

 

[duchessrachel]

What was announced, their royal patronages and positions that they wanted to keep - part of being half in, half out.

They got to keep the private ones like Smart Works and Invictus etc.

Thank you. It made me wonder if they were talking about titles, but I highly doubt those will be removed.

 

[duchessrachel]

Questions over some possible sharp practise by Oprah Winfrey:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...rket-tabloid-celebrity-gossip-magazines-used/

Could you tell me the title of that article? I am not a subscriber to the telegraph, but I want to look it up in the archives. Thanks.