Oprah with Harry and Meghan: A CBS Primetime Special

[deaja]

This topic is to discuss the Harry and Meghan interview special with Oprah airing March 7, 2021. 

This is not a catchall thread for all things royal family. That thread is here. This thread is only for the interview and will be locked until the interview airs. 

[freddi]

Thanks for setting this up!  Won't be able to watch until three hours later on the West Coast, but it's great to be able to see what parts get attention.  

Edited March 8, 2021 by freddi

[Quickbeam]

As an American I’m really clear in why we don’t have royalty. So I am not watching but will enjoy the snark. So bring it. 

[deaja]

They’re going to announce if they’re having a boy or girl in a little while!

[freddi]

Just now, deaja said:

They’re going to announce if they’re having a boy or girl in a little while!

"Oprah Hosts a Gender-Reveal Party!"

[Calvada]

I checked BBC.com and they are running a live feed as the interview progresses - it says that almost 11,000 people are following it and the number is steadily ticking upward.  It's 1:00 am in England.  It's the reverse of all the Americans getting up before dawn to watch a royal wedding.  

If they really did reveal the baby's gender during the course of the interview, it's amazing that info didn't leak.  Can you imagine how much money one of the camera people could have made with that info?  Of course, Oprah would probably see that they never work again!  

[freddi]

Now I am seeing that this is a huge promotion to get people to sign up for Paramount (formerly CBS All Access, until three days ago).   I know people in Britain who are watching the interview live on Paramount over there.  

3 minutes ago, Calvada said:

I checked BBC.com and they are running a live feed as the interview progresses - it says that almost 11,000 people are following it and the number is steadily ticking upward.  

Aha!  So, maybe they did not need to sign up for Paramount to see it a day early.  

[Spartan Girl]

So that story about getting into a fight with Kate was bullshit blown up by the tabloids. Tempers ran high because of wedding stress and pregnancy hormones, but they resolved it before the actual wedding. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Spartan Girl

[Calvada]

2 minutes ago, freddi said:

Now I am seeing that this is a huge promotion to get people to sign up for Paramount (formerly CBS All Access, until three days ago).   I know people in Britain who are watching the interview live on Paramount over there.  

Aha!  So, maybe they did not need to sign up for Paramount to see it a day early.  

The BBC is not televising it, they are simply posting updates on what is being said.

[WinnieWinkle]

5 minutes ago, Calvada said:

I checked BBC.com and they are running a live feed as the interview progresses - it says that almost 11,000 people are following it and the number is steadily ticking upward.  It's 1:00 am in England. 

Oh for pete's sake - so airing at 1 am in England - so why the handwringing a few days ago by Certain People about how this was timed to deliberately steal attention away from the Queen and the Commonwealth Address?  Sheesh.

[Enero]

5 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

So that story about getting into a fight with Kate was bullshit blown up by the tabloids. Tempers ran high because of wedding stress and pregnancy hormones, but they resolved it before the actual wedding. 

I’m just wondering why Kate felt like she had a say in someone else’s wedding? But it’s all good I guess since she apologized.  But then someone went on to release the story as the opposite happening to the tabloids. SMH. 

Cool to learn that they actually married three days before the pomp and circus that was the televised wedding. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Enero

[deaja]

1 minute ago, Enero said:

I’m just wondering why Kate felt like she had a say in someone else’s wedding? But it’s all good I guess since she apologized.  But then someone went on to release the story as the opposite happening to the tabloids. SMH. 

My guess would be because it directly involved her daughter. 

8 minutes ago, freddi said:

Now I am seeing that this is a huge promotion to get people to sign up for Paramount (formerly CBS All Access, until three days ago).   I know people in Britain who are watching the interview live on Paramount over there.  

Aha!  So, maybe they did not need to sign up for Paramount to see it a day early.  

Which is great that it seems to be causing an error on the app so I’m having to watch through locast instead of the app

[Kromm]

Whoopsie. Time for the race part. 

[deaja]

“Concerns about how dark his skin would be.” 
Wow

[Spartan Girl]

Interesting that despite Meghan explaining why there doesn’t have to be a hero/villain narrative with whatever happened with her and Kate, Twitter is already taking sides. JFC

[DearEvette]

 

1 minute ago, deaja said:

“Concerns about how dark his skin would be.” 
Wow

  Damn.  Even unflappable Oprah was shook by that.

[Kromm]

I wonder if the specific "Royal Experts" from that YouTube expose, who gave fake feedback the other day before anyone had even seen this are recording new reactions right now. 

[Calvada]

3 minutes ago, Enero said:

I’m just wondering why Kate felt like she had a say in someone else’s wedding? But it’s all good I guess since she apologized.  Us then someone went in to release the story as the opposite happening to the tabloids. SMH. 

Cool to learn that they actually married three days before the pomp and circus that was the televised wedding. 

I think what Spartan Girl said about hormones might apply - Kate had Louis 3 weeks before the wedding.  I'm sure she was tired, not getting much sleep, stressed over appearing in public 3 weeks post-delivery, and probably feeling a lot of pressure for her children appearing in public in an official royal event.  But she apologized!  Why it was allowed to be a false story about Meghan months later amazes me.  I wonder if the RF establishment didn't want an official statement disputing it as part of their usual method of not responding to tabloid reports.  I somehow feel that if the true story had come out, Meghan would have been required to issue some type of statement downplaying it, or even denying it.  

I wonder if the exchange of vows 3 days before were actually legal.  It was just the 2 of them and the archbishop?  Does British law require witnesses?  

[Kromm]

Meghan DOES have to be more specific about who said these ridiculous things. 

Edit - she's making a BIG mistake not naming names.  A huge one. Especially with the skin color thing. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Kromm

[Kromm]

6 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Interesting that despite Meghan explaining why there doesn’t have to be a hero/villain narrative with whatever happened with her and Kate, Twitter is already taking sides. JFC

The White British part of the equation has been preprogrammed to consider her a hysterical, uncouth, famewhore liar. They don't CARE what she says here. 

[Enero]

Not surprised about the conversations about Archie’s skin color. It’s disgusting. And once again reiterates why they got the hell out of dodge. 

[Straycat80]

5 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Meghan DOES have to be more specific about who said these ridiculous things. 

I’m a little confused here, is she talking about the British tabloid press? How were the RF suppose to protect her from them? 

[Kromm]

Just now, Straycat80 said:

I’m a little confused here, is she talking about the British tabloid press? How were the RF suppose to protect her from them? 

She's being vague, but she was clear enough that it was someone in the family. 

My gut says Charles. 

[Enero]

6 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Meghan DOES have to be more specific about who said these ridiculous things. 

She can’t say because these were family members facilitating these conversations. If she named names it would blow sh^t up for real. I think they’re trying not to burn the house down. 

But it’s even more clear why the palace won’t on the attack a week before this interview was released. Fear of what would be said. Pure and simple. 

[Calvada]

9 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Meghan DOES have to be more specific about who said these ridiculous things. 

Yes, I agree.  She seems to be talking about the staff, but then she seemed to indicate it was a member of the family who had a concern about how dark Archie's skin would be, given that she said it would be very damaging if that came out.  The only people that I think that applies to are the Queen, Charles and William.  

Edited March 8, 2021 by Calvada

[LexieLily]

Meghan seems to be choosing her words carefully in that she will go to the edge but not go far enough to name names. If even a tenth of all of this is true (and I'm sure it is) it is no wonder Harry took the steps to get her and Archie out of there. 

[Snow Apple]

1 minute ago, Kromm said:

She's being vague, but she was clear enough that it was someone in the family. 

My gut says Charles. 

I'm thinking Phillip.

[DearEvette]

8 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Meghan DOES have to be more specific about who said these ridiculous things. 

It sounds like a lot is coming to her through Harry. So they aren't even giving her the courtesy of saying this shit to her face.  And if she is getting it through hearsay she really can't say definitively without opening herself up potentially some legal stuff.

[Kromm]

Just now, Enero said:

She can’t say because these were family members facilitating these conversations. If she named names it would blow sh^t up for real. I think they’re trying not to burn the house down. 

But it’s even more clear why the palace won’t on the attack a week before this interview was released. Fear of what would be said. Pure and simple. 

Remember... she's the bully (two+ years ago). And we're only going to mention it now. 

Honestly... does anyone doubt Charles had to have been the hammer on this?  By NOT saying it she's giving them room to position it as her making it all up. 

Those "Palace insiders" and "Royal insiders" are working like hell tonight digging up more crap. 

3 minutes ago, Snow Apple said:

I'm thinking Phillip.

I get that he's a known racist, but he's ancient. I think a man to man chat with Harry had to be Dear Old Dad. 

[Arkay]

Meghan seems popular on this forum, but I'm giving her the side-eye. She seems very hung up on Archie not being a prince, and I think she's incorrect that all the queen's grandchildren and great-grandchildren have those titles. I think Princess Anne and Prince Edward's children are not princes and princesses, and those are the queen's grandchildren. I don't think Eugenie's newborn is a prince, and he's a great-grandchild. 

I understand the need for Archie to have security, but these are stunningly wealthy  people who can certainly afford their own security force. 

[Runningwild]

35 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

So that story about getting into a fight with Kate was bullshit blown up by the tabloids. Tempers ran high because of wedding stress and pregnancy hormones, but they resolved it before the actual wedding. 

That’s Meghan’s version of events. 

[meatball77]

4 minutes ago, Snow Apple said:

I'm thinking Phillip.

That was my thought also.  Phillip would totally say that and maybe Charles and Andrew sat and went along.

[Enero]

Wow. Suicidal thoughts. This situation nearly broke her. Again, no wonder they left. 

[WinnieWinkle]

4 minutes ago, Arkay said:

She seems very hung up on Archie not being a prince, and I think she's incorrect that all the queen's grandchildren and great-grandchildren have those titles. I think Princess Anne and Prince Edward's children are not princes and princesses, and those are the queen's grandchildren. I don't think Eugenie's newborn is a prince, and he's a great-grandchild. 

My understanding is that this was by the choice of their parents.  Is she saying they were not consulted about a title for Archie and future children?

[meatball77]

3 minutes ago, Arkay said:

Meghan seems popular on this forum, but I'm giving her the side-eye. She seems very hung up on Archie not being a prince, and I think she's incorrect that all the queen's grandchildren and great-grandchildren have those titles. I think Princess Anne and Prince Edward's children are not princes and princesses, and those are the queen's grandchildren. I don't think Eugenie's newborn is a prince, and he's a great-grandchild. 

I understand the need for Archie to have security, but these are stunningly wealthy  people who can certainly afford their own security force. 

Andrew's children are princesses.  That's the place where Archie is.  He's a rung above Eugenies kids because Harry is the child of the oldest child.  Eugenie is the child of a younger son which means that she moves down the line.

Good for Megan speaking up about mental illness.

[Kromm]

6 minutes ago, Arkay said:

Meghan seems popular on this forum, but I'm giving her the side-eye. She seems very hung up on Archie not being a prince, and I think she's incorrect that all the queen's grandchildren and great-grandchildren have those titles. I think Princess Anne and Prince Edward's children are not princes and princesses, and those are the queen's grandchildren. I don't think Eugenie's newborn is a prince, and he's a great-grandchild. 

I understand the need for Archie to have security, but these are stunningly wealthy  people who can certainly afford their own security force. 

I don't know about Edward, but the other two are female.  British titles don't pass down through daughters, from what I recall. Harry is not a daughter. 

[WinnieWinkle]

Just now, meatball77 said:

Andrew's children are princesses.  That's the place where Archie is.  He's a rung above Eugenies kids because Harry is the child of the oldest child.  Eugenie is the child of a younger son which means that she moves down the line.

Exactly.  Harry may be the Queen's grandchild but he is also the son of the future King.  That alone would and should make a difference to any titles his children would have.  At least I think it should anyway!

[Trini]

27 minutes ago, deaja said:

“Concerns about how dark his skin would be.” 
Wow

Not that racism makes sense, but Meghan's one shade away from white-passing, and Harry's a redhead. C'mon, now.

[Straycat80]

I’m surprised Harry, knowing what his mother went through, did not prepare Megan for this life. Suicidal, and while she was very pregnant too, don’t blame them for leaving now. 

[freddi]

Just now, meatball77 said:

Andrew's children are princesses.  That's the place where Archie is.  He's a rung above Eugenies kids because Harry is the child of the oldest child.  Eugenie is the child of a younger son which means that she moves down the line.

No, Andrew's children are grandchildren of the monarch; Archie is the great-grandchild of the monarch.  There are different automatic titles for great-grandchildren.  

[Enero]

6 minutes ago, Arkay said:

Meghan seems popular on this forum, but I'm giving her the side-eye. She seems very hung up on Archie not being a prince, and I think she's incorrect that all the queen's grandchildren and great-grandchildren have those titles. I think Princess Anne and Prince Edward's children are not princes and princesses, and those are the queen's grandchildren. I don't think Eugenie's newborn is a prince, and he's a great-grandchild. 

I understand the need for Archie to have security, but these are stunningly wealthy  people who can certainly afford their own security force. 

The people that you mentioned didn’t have the vitriol nor death threats that Meghan and Harry had. As far as them paying for their own security. As long as they are apart of the firm I don’t know if they’d even have the choice to obtain outside security which is why I think Meghan wanted him to have the prince title. It sounded like it was more about getting him protection than having a title. 

[meatball77]

1 minute ago, WinnieWinkle said:

My understanding is that this was by the choice of their parents.  Is she saying they were not consulted about a title for Archie and future children?

She's saying that this was decided for them and at the same time they're talking about how dark Archie's skin will be when he's born and that him not having the royal title would mean that he doesn't get security (as they're just allowing the paps to lie and slander her family).

[Nidratime]

Quote

She seems very hung up on Archie not being a prince, and I think she's incorrect that all the queen's grandchildren and great-grandchildren have those titles.

I think she was "hung up" on the fact that as a non-prince and such, that he would not get the protection. That they didn't want to protect a mixed race child. It wasn't about the title, it was about the protection.

[DearEvette]

6 minutes ago, Arkay said:

Meghan seems popular on this forum, but I'm giving her the side-eye. She seems very hung up on Archie not being a prince, and I think she's incorrect that all the queen's grandchildren and great-grandchildren have those titles. I think Princess Anne and Prince Edward's children are not princes and princesses, and those are the queen's grandchildren. I don't think Eugenie's newborn is a prince, and he's a great-grandchild. 

I understand the need for Archie to have security, but these are stunningly wealthy  people who can certainly afford their own security force. 

I didn't interpret it that way.  I got the impression that by sheer line of succession (direct line) that any child of Harry's would have automatically been a prince.  So the discussion to remove the title from him was unprecedented.  If that was his hereditary title why change it?  And if keeping him a prince meant getting a safety detail then she was all for it that reason alone.

[Runningwild]

2 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

My understanding is that this was by the choice of their parents.  Is she saying they were not consulted about a title for Archie and future children?

Meghan seems really ignorant of the Crown, traditions and titles. I don’t think anyone gets consulted about their children’s titles. It’s all steeped in tradition. She didn’t even know she was supposed to curtsy to The Queen. Wowsa. 

[Spartan Girl]

Harry is truly a gem of a prince of a man for sticking by her when she needed him the most.

[MerBearHou]

I call BS that Meghan didn’t know she was supposed to curtsy to the queen.

[Kromm]

1 minute ago, DearEvette said:

I didn't interpret it that way.  I got the impression that by sheer line of succession (direct line) that any child of Harry's would have automatically been a prince.  So the discussion to remove the title from him was unprecedented.  If that was his hereditary title why change it?  And if keeping him a prince meant getting a safety detail then she was all for it that reason alone.

Right. Harry is not female.  2 of the 3 examples given were. Despite the female monarch, the British peerage is a patriarchy. 

[meatball77]

3 minutes ago, freddi said:

No, Andrew's children are grandchildren of the monarch; Archie is the great-grandchild of the monarch.  There are different automatic titles for great-grandchildren.  

Archie will be the grandchild of the King.

So, Megan has so far said kind words about Kate and kind words about the Queen nothing positive about Charles or William yet (nothing about Phillip either but he's 99).  Hmmmm

[deaja]

4 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Exactly.  Harry may be the Queen's grandchild but he is also the son of the future King.  That alone would and should make a difference to any titles his children would have.  At least I think it should anyway!

Yep. Just like the Cambridge kids, Archie’s first cousins. They wouldn’t necessarily get the titles until Charles is king, but they changed that for them. 
 

And she mostly sounded hung up on the corresponding lack of protection. Plus they released that she and Harry had declined a title, which led to people criticizing them for that. If it wasn’t there decision, it’s another time they were hung out to dry by “the firm.”