Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
deaja

Oprah with Harry and Meghan: A CBS Primetime Special

Recommended Posts


16 minutes ago, deaja said:

They said they wanted to live as private citizens, not to live privately. I think they both know they would never be able to live completely privately. Their wealth was inherited- yes, because Harry’s mom was married to Prince Charles, but that’s not something they can undo.

"Privately" does not mean "recluse". People know this. They clearly didn't want (just like nobody wants) unwelcome intrusions into their lives.

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, PepSinger said:

What I think he was trying to say was that at first he didn't say anything, but eventually he did. When he did, they still didn't do anything to help.

Ok I'm NOT defending the royal family here but ... ignorance about depression is rampant. I work in a school where a girl has SERIOUS depression and self-harming issues. We've spoken numerous times to the mother and the mother still says "she's not depressed she's just spoiled." This is very much an ongoing attitude.

  • Like 6
  • Sad 11

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, PepSinger said:

What I think he was trying to say was that at first he didn't say anything, but eventually he did. When he did, they still didn't do anything to help.

I wish Oprah had followed up to let him clarify.  I think she is not a good interviewer, and things like that can be used as “gotcha!” In the UK tabloids.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Just now, Arkay said:

. I thought Oprah did a decent job, but I do wish she'd asked Meghan more about her father. Also, as superficial as this is, I don't think Oprah's hairstyle was flattering to her. 

I’m glad she didn’t ask about her father. Because in essence his behavior and behavior of her half sister is nothing new. Many celebrities and public figures have had to deal with their family members selling them for a buck. Giving him any more attention would feed the troll. Basically they weren’t worth mentioning. 

I’m glad she focused on what we didn’t know which was the depth of the insanity going on behind the scenes at the palace. 

  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, blixie said:

I still feel the rift is bigger with Will, at this moment in time at least. He said his dad he are talking while with William he said there was "space" which reads as currently estranged. My guess is more than one person made a comment about Archie's skin. He didn't wanna single out because it wasn't single.

I think it's a different kind of rift. 

I think his rift with Prince Chucklehead is unfixable. Charles has clearly been the heavy, desperately scrambling to protect his own weak legacy. If Harry was glossing over anything, I bet it was that he probably was less surprised by this than he's admitting. 

I think his rift with his brother seems more like disappointment. William isn't making many decisions, but he's not publicly supporting Harry either. 

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, ParadoxLost said:

They don't care about the new family member.  The tabloids will always have a villain and if its not going to be Meghan then who will it be.  No one else in the family wants to find out.

That everything turned when Meghan did her first tour and was extremely well received, like Diana, made it seem like someone (probably Charles) threw Meghan to the tabloids because they didn't want her to eclipse those more direct in line to the throne in popularity.

exactly! they did not give her a "crash course" in being royal and i don't believe that they meaning the staff actually running "the firm" were all that welcoming to Megan. They expected her to fall on her face and crumble under pressure like Harry's ex Chelsea Davies and run tail back to the US 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, doodlebug said:
9 minutes ago, MerBearHou said:

So now that they’ve aired this interview, who thinks we won’t hear from them and they’ll be done with the press?

They have never been interested in being out of the public eye.  They have media deals to produce all sorts of programming and such.  They are active in multiple charities and will undoubtedly lend their faces to promote them.  They have only ever said that they wanted the right to respond to outright lies in the press and now, they've done that for the royal portion of their lives.  I have no doubt they'll be doing a lot of press in the future for various and sundry things; they never said they would be hermits.

 

Thank you. It's as if people are deliberately misinterpreting what they've stated all along. They want to deal with and engage with the media on their terms.

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post

Harry was always the more sensitive one, maybe because he was so young when his mother died. His reaction to all this, his family and the press, is not surprising.

1 hour ago, freddi said:

Yes, and when Archie is the grandchild of the monarch, instead of the great-grandchild of the monarch, the rules for his title change.  But he is not the grandchild of the monarch yet.  

He is in exactly the same position as William's children. They are known as Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louie.  I think that that is more telling than anything else on how they are treated, that while William's children are princes and a princes, Harry's child gets nothing at all. Archie is also 7th in the line of succession, that deserves something.

34 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Harry and Meghan eventually do ease back into royal duties a bit.

I think they might if they were treated fairly because they have both done a lot of charity work even before getting together and being part of the Royal Family would help that.

But it looks like it depends on William if he succeeds to the throne because Charles looks to be someone who would rather not have a relationship with his own child and his grandchildren.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

I dont think it sounded like the relationship with William was irreparable. I mean, Meghan specifically pointed out Kate willing to apologize and be a reasonable person. I also think that William and Kate say they want to visit Harry in the US this summer. 

1 minute ago, statsgirl said:

Harry was always the more sensitive one, maybe because he was so young when his mother died. His reaction to all this, his family and the press, is not surprising.

He is in exactly the same position as William's children. They are known as Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louie.  I think that that is more telling than anything else on how they are treated, that while William's children are princes and a princes, Harry's child gets nothing at all. Archie is also 7th in the line of succession, that deserves something.

There was actually a royal edict saying all direct descendants to the thrown get the "prince" title. The awarding of titles is deeply weird and labyrinth. Like it's "Queen Elizabeth" but it's only "Prince Philip" for ... reasons.

  • Like 3
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

I missed the first hour so will have to watch that part.  One thing Harry said that confused me was that he was ashamed to tell the family how much Meghan was struggling.  Earlier he had said that he kept asking for help and was rebuffed.  Did I miss something that would help that make sense?

I think the "ashamed" part was to admit that she has having thoughts of suicide specifically.  Not the struggling in general.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Growsonwalls said:

I dont think it sounded like the relationship with William was irreparable. I mean, Meghan specifically pointed out Kate willing to apologize and be a reasonable person. I also think that William and Kate say they want to visit Harry in the US this summer. 

I think this interview points to all the relationships basically being irreparably severed. I really wouldn't be surprised if they find a way to somehow fully excommunicate them from the family entirely.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

He is in exactly the same position as William's children. They are known as Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louie.  I think that that is more telling than anything else on how they are treated, that while William's children are princes and a princes, Harry's child gets nothing at all. Archie is also 7th in the line of succession, that deserves something.

 

George, Charlotte, Louis, Archie, and August do not automatically receive titles as great grandchildren of the Monarch.  The Queen decided to bestow a title to George prior to his birth since he would get it once she died anyway as a grandchild of the monarch and since he is in direct line to the throne.  Then they decided to do the same for George's siblings so everything would be "equal".

The topic of Archie's title is a little vague to me.  If they had already announced to the Queen that they were stepping back and would not be senior royals, I can see why she wouldn't feel the need to bestow a title "early" or at all.  I also never felt Meghan answered clearly about whether they asked for the title outright or if they felt they had to ask for the title in order to get security.  And the timing of all those conversations matter too.   The whole thing is a disaster, but this was the one area I felt Meghan's answer left some questions.

Edited by Bewitched
  • Like 9
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

He is in exactly the same position as William's children. They are known as Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louie.  I think that that is more telling than anything else on how they are treated, that while William's children are princes and a princes, Harry's child gets nothing at all. Archie is also 7th in the line of succession, that deserves something.

I don't think that's true. William and George are future monarchs. Harry and Archie are not.

Edited by absolutelyido
  • Like 21
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

44 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Harry and Meghan eventually do ease back into royal duties a bit.

After what was said in this interview I think it is a snowball’s chance in hell that they’d go back. I’d go even further to say even if their marriage fails, like so many are hoping will happen, Harry is not going back to the monarch. He has taken the red pill and is now woke. He won’t go back alone or with Meghan, not after the hell they e been through. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

So, the investigation into Megan's "bullying" comes out looking a bit different when she's taking about her mental health being so fragile that she went to HR....

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

I think the reason that Harry is not happy with his father is that Charles continued to pay for Harry and Meghan while they were in Canada. After they decided not to continue as working royals and return to the UK,  they were understandably cut off.  As Harry said, he inherited money (quite a substantial amount) from his mother, so he should not be expecting his 72 year old father to still be supporting him as he lives his life in the U.S. 

Because Harry and Megan had plan A as living in a commonwealth country like Canada, away from the UK were they could get some breathing room. Megan said there are LOTS of other royal family members who are not senior members but still do royal appearances and whatnot so why couldn't they.  If you recall in the interview they NEVER planned to come back to the US but their location was leaked and the security detail was cancelled which was a MAJOR safety issue.  Another commenter posted that Canadian Police were on their protection detail but i bet that was only for the property, they couldn't travel with them like a personal security team like the ones Jay Z and Beyonce have.

"The Firm" was punishing Harry for 1 marrying Megan a Biracial divorced woman, and 2 for standing up to them.

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Lsk02 said:

Meghan talked about a Royal mandate (or whatever it’s called) from King George 5 or 6 that said all direct descendants of the Crown would receive titles, and that The Institution chose to change that basically because of her, and her child’s race. I think she truly believes that was at the heart of it. She had been been spewed “tradition tradition” for 2 years by that point, and suddenly a very long standing historical tradition was changing with her child. And losing any possible protection in the process. 

This is not factual, though. Prince Edward's children are a Lady and a Viscount, and they are direct descendants of the crown, in the same generation as William and Harry.  Those are titles, but not a prince as Meghan expected. Princess Anne's children don't have any titles, but maybe because Anne is a female. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

They have never been interested in being out of the public eye.  They have media deals to produce all sorts of programming and such.  They are active in multiple charities and will undoubtedly lend their faces to promote them.  They have only ever said that they wanted the right to respond to outright lies in the press and now, they've done that for the royal portion of their lives.  I have no doubt they'll be doing a lot of press in the future for various and sundry things; they never said they would be hermits.

 

I think it was fairly obvious by process of elimination.  Harry had nothing but glowing words for the Queen.  Meghan specifically mentioned that Kate was a lovely person, that, after upsetting Meghan in the days before the wedding; that she apologized and sent her flowers and it was all good.  Harry made it clear that he and William are not as close as they once were; but it was Charles who got singled out for having refused his calls.  Charles is a weakling, worried about what will happen when his mother dies.  He is the one who caters to the press.

I am thinking it was Philip who has been known thru the years for making racist statements.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Just now, Arkay said:

This is not factual, though. Prince Edward's children are a Lady and a Viscount, and they are direct descendants of the crown, in the same generation as William and Harry.  Those are titles, but not a prince as Meghan expected. Princess Anne's children don't have any titles, but maybe because Anne is a female. 

Anne's kids don;t have titles because Anne didn't want it for her kids. But Anne is very open that she's not really into the royal lifestyle at all. She does her own thing and people leave her alone.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Arkay said:

This is not factual, though. Prince Edward's children are a Lady and a Viscount, and they are direct descendants of the crown, in the same generation as William and Harry.  Those are titles, but not a prince as Meghan expected. Princess Anne's children don't have any titles, but maybe because Anne is a female. 

Princess Anne specifically asked that her children NOT be given royal titles, she did not want them burdened with all that comes along with a title.

  • Like 7
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

 

He is in exactly the same position as William's children. They are known as Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louie.  I think that that is more telling than anything else on how they are treated, that while William's children are princes and a princes, Harry's child gets nothing at all. Archie is also 7th in the line of succession, that deserves something..

He's not in the same position because Harry is not second in line to succeed to the throne.  And, once again, Charles has made it very clear that he wants to limit the titles to members of the family who would be expected to one day be working royals.  Charles was known to have been opposed to Beatrice and Eugenie being named Princesses at birth; so he has been somewhat consistent in that stance.  It doesn't explain the refusal to provide his own grandson, his flesh and blood, with security, though.  Charles could easily afford to cover that expense but apparently chose not to do so.

  • Like 13
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

That everything turned when Meghan did her first tour and was extremely well received, like Diana, made it seem like someone (probably Charles) threw Meghan to the tabloids because they didn't want her to eclipse those more direct in line to the throne in popularity.

That's always going to happen with a new person. It's absurd no one can remember that.

9 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

[Archie] is in exactly the same position as William's children. They are known as Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louie.  I think that that is more telling than anything else on how they are treated, that while William's children are princes and a princes, Harry's child gets nothing at all. Archie is also 7th in the line of succession, that deserves something.

He's not, actually. Meghan briefly mentioned a George V or VI thing about paring down who gets titles. Technically, only George was eligible for the HRH as the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. The queen issued a Leters of Patent (or something) that gave Charlotte and Louis title parity; otherwise, they'd be Lady Charlotte and Lord Louis until Charles (or William, depending) ascended the throne. The HRH isn't passed down indefinitely. It's why when the heirs to the dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester get their titles, they won't be HRH like their fathers.

  • Like 10
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Growsonwalls said:

Anne's kids don;t have titles because Anne didn't want it for her kids. But Anne is very open that she's not really into the royal lifestyle at all. She does her own thing and people leave her alone.

Although Anne is known as a hard-working Royal who attends many openings, greetings, charities, etc

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

I wish Oprah had followed up to let him clarify.  I think she is not a good interviewer, and things like that can be used as “gotcha!” In the UK tabloids.

I can't believe that Oprah told Gail that this is the best interview she has ever done. Mind you Harry and Meghan also danced around some questions rather than answer them directly, so I think at times Oprah got frustrated and just moved on. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

It will be interesting to see what the UK tabloids do with this tomorrow.  I suspect they were expecting Meghan and Harry to go after them hard.  But instead they went after the family and the Firm pretty hard. That might be enough to shift the narrative a little.

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Arkay said:

This is not factual, though. Prince Edward's children are a Lady and a Viscount, and they are direct descendants of the crown, in the same generation as William and Harry.  Those are titles, but not a prince as Meghan expected. Princess Anne's children don't have any titles, but maybe because Anne is a female. 

Anne specifically chose for her children not to have titles.  Edward and Sophie apparently at the time of their marriage agreed that any future children would have the titles associated with being the children of an Earl.  No such agreement was made with Harry and Meghan the decision was made for them.

  • Like 8
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Arkay said:

Prince Edward's children are a Lady and a Viscount, and they are direct descendants of the crown, in the same generation as William and Harry.  Those are titles, but not a prince as Meghan expected. Princess Anne's children don't have any titles, but maybe because Anne is a female.

The queen agreed to this. Edward's children are far enough down the Line of Succession that it doesn't really matter if they're HRH or not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Just a point of clarification:  Harry inherited over $10 million from his mother which is a huge amount for most of us.  However, Prince Charles, his 72 year old father is a billionaire with a capital B.  Harry has lived the life of the son of a billionaire and, as such, was quite used to his father supporting him as are the children of many, if not most, billionaires.  While $10 million can give one a very nice lifestyle, it is not the life that Harry is accustomed to living.  Hence, the need to sign the multimillion dollar contract with Netflix.

When you think of how much full time security must coat alone it's not an infinite amount.  I'm betting their security is well over six figures a year.

The crown saying we aren't going to pay for security while also leaking information to the press which makes them more of a target is a jackass move.

And Sorry Megan you can't go to lunch with your friends, you are in the press enough as it is....

 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, BuckeyeLou said:

Princess Anne specifically asked that her children NOT be given royal titles, she did not want them burdened with all that comes along with a title.

Royal titles come through the male line, so her children wouldn't get the HRH unless she married one. Mark Phillips turned down a title so that his children wouldn't be Lord/Lady.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

4 minutes ago, carolinagirl81 said:

Because Harry and Megan had plan A as living in a commonwealth country like Canada, away from the UK were they could get some breathing room. Megan said there are LOTS of other royal family members who are not senior members but still do royal appearances and whatnot so why couldn't they.  If you recall in the interview they NEVER planned to come back to the US but their location was leaked and the security detail was cancelled which was a MAJOR safety issue.  Another commenter posted that Canadian Police were on their protection detail but i bet that was only for the property, they couldn't travel with them like a personal security team like the ones Jay Z and Beyonce have.

"The Firm" was punishing Harry for 1 marrying Megan a Biracial divorced woman, and 2 for standing up to them.

The RCMP did travel with them when the went to Vancouver, Meghan went to the airport to pick up a friend, and went about their business on Vancouver Island. It was known from the start where they were on Vancouver Island, and they stayed there for 5 months. However it is a small place, and not somewhere that would be conducive to making their own money. I was not surprised in the least that they ended up in L.A. 

  • Like 6
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Megan did not give two flipps about weather or not Archie would be "Prince" she only cared that she and Harry were getting death threats and racist attacks and wanted her child protected and knew that if Archie had a formal title he'd then get a security detail.

  • Like 22

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, deaja said:

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

This is honestly the LEAST surprising thing she said. I had no doubts that would be a concern.

2 hours 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. 

Wasn't the story always Kate was crazy upset that Meghan didn't want the bridesmaids wearing tights and this was somehow a huge issue to Kate? Makes much more sense that it actually was Kate making Meghan cry about it rather than Meghan making Kate cry about it. 

1 hour ago, Trini said:

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

That really means nothing though. A friend of my mom's boyfriend is white and his wife is half black, but she's actually lighter skinned than the husband. They had twins a few years ago and one of the little girls is darker skinned than Meghan. You just never know. 

1 hour ago, Kromm said:

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

Didn't they have to pass something changing the rules to allow for a female monarch before George was born incase the first baby was a girl? 

36 minutes ago, meatball77 said:

I think that it's also for the same reason that Williams kids dress like it's 1940.  It's to make them more anonymous.  Archie can go to the park with his babysitter and no one would recognize him.  It sounds like they are getting regular death threats and need the safety
 

I know they claim it's to make them more anonymous, but I've always believed Kate 1000% dresses her kids like that to make sure they look like proper little royals. Dressing them like kids from the 1940's makes them stand out more than if they were just little kids wearing anything off the rack at any random store. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calvada said:

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.  

My guess is Philip who is known for making racist statements thru the years

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

The RCMP did travel with them when the went to Vancouver, Meghan went to the airport to pick up a friend, and went about their business on Vancouver Island. It was known from the start where they were on Vancouver Island, and they stayed there for 5 months. However it is a small place, and not somewhere that would be conducive to making their own money. I was not surprised in the least that they ended up in L.A. 

But they only ended up in LA AFTER Harry's main source of income was cut off the funds from Charles. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Mind you Harry and Meghan also danced around some questions rather than answer them directly, so I think at times Oprah got frustrated and just moved on. 

Yeah, I noticed them not directly responding to things she was asking, and she tried to return to those questions, but then moved on when the answer was not forthcoming. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

1 minute ago, Fostersmom said:

Wasn't the story always Kate was crazy upset that Meghan didn't want the bridesmaids wearing tights and this was somehow a huge issue to Kate? Makes much more sense that it actually was Kate making Meghan cry about it rather than Meghan making Kate cry about it. 

That ended up being the FINAL story but the initial story was that Meghan got into an argument with Kate's assistant.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, dubbel zout said:

The queen agreed to this. Edward's children are far enough down the Line of Succession that it doesn't really matter if they're HRH or not.

Agreed. But so is Archie. Edward is a prince, the son and not grandson of the monarch as Harry is, and he seems fine without his children being prince and princess. The whole issue here is that Meghan seemed desperately upset about Archie not being titled as a prince. I know she said it's due to security funding, which is a serious issue, but they can have their own security. I do think she cares about the title for its own sake. She doesn't shy away from calling herself a duchess.

In the end, wherever they live and whatever they're called, I just hope for healing in the family. We all remember how close William and Harry were. They both lost their mother that day. They need each other as brothers. I hope the rifts heal in both Harry's and Meghan's families. There's a lot of pain there. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Fostersmom said:

Didn't they have to pass something changing the rules to allow for a female monarch before George was born incase the first baby was a girl? 

Not exactly. They changed the rule to absolute primogenture; i.e., the first-born inherits the crown regardless of gender. The rule before was male primogeniture, i.e., the eldest male child.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Just a point of clarification:  Harry inherited over $10 million from his mother which is a huge amount for most of us.  However, Prince Charles, his 72 year old father is a billionaire with a capital B.  Harry has lived the life of the son of a billionaire and, as such, was quite used to his father supporting him as are the children of many, if not most, billionaires.  While $10 million can give one a very nice lifestyle, it is not the life that Harry is accustomed to living.  Hence, the need to sign the multimillion dollar contract with Netflix.

Harry inherited that money 24 years ago. Ten million in 1997 is worth a lot more now. He also inherited from his great grandmother. 

  • Like 11
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Anne specifically chose for her children not to have titles.  Edward and Sophie apparently at the time of their marriage agreed that any future children would have the titles associated with being the children of an Earl.  No such agreement was made with Harry and Meghan the decision was made for them.

In the end, the decision is made for everyone-by the monarch.  Anne wasn't interested in titles for her kids because she knew they would never be needed as working royals and a title doesn't help get you a job in the real world.  At the time Edward and Sophie married, it was announced that they and the Queen agreed that their children would not be HRH but only accorded the titles befitting the children of an Earl.  I recall that, when this happened. it was reported that it was done this way because Charles wanted it.  He intervened with the Queen and Edward and they agreed that Edward and Sophie's kids would not be Princes or Princesses.  Had the Queen wanted, she could've granted the kids titles whether their parents wanted them or not.  It seems like Harry and Meghan never discussed a title for their children prior to their marriage and just presumed that Charles would want all of his grandchildren to be HRH and were shocked when that wasn't the case.  However, it was never up to Harry and Meghan if their child would have a title or not.

It is fairly well known that the Queen, at the ripe old age of 95 (96 next month), has handed over this sort of stuff to Charles since these decisions are going to affect his reign, not hers and it is a pretty good bet that if Charles had wanted it, Archie would be a Prince.  I think Harry was shocked and hurt that his father didn't want that for his son and it just hadn't occurred to him to ask about it in advance.

  • Like 12
  • Useful 7

Share this post


Link to post

Pretty good interview, though Oprah is not the best interviewer. Lots of things revealed. And I can easily believe them because we know what Diana went through and we all know British society is far more racist than they like to admit (and the UK press was clearly racist in their coverage of Meghan).

I think Diana would be extremely proud of her son for taking the steps necessary to keep him and his family mentally and physically safe

I do have a hard time believing Meghan would step into that situation having no understanding what UK royal life is like. You would think Harry would have warned her given Diana’s experience

  • Like 12
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

The RCMP did travel with them when the went to Vancouver, Meghan went to the airport to pick up a friend, and went about their business on Vancouver Island. It was known from the start where they were on Vancouver Island, and they stayed there for 5 months. However it is a small place, and not somewhere that would be conducive to making their own money. I was not surprised in the least that they ended up in L.A. 

And in LA they are solid B or C list when it comes to the press thinking they are interesting.  They can go to the beach and he can put Archie on the back of a bike (that was the cutest image ever) without having to worry about being harassed because  Oprah lives down the street and is more interesting.  They can probably put a hat and a mask and go to Target.  They just aren't that interesting when you might see a movie star.

 

I loved that they talked about mental health and that is one of their first projects that they are producing.  Sure it was a tie in, but an important one.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Royal titles come through the male line, so her children wouldn't get the HRH unless she married one. Mark Phillips turned down a title so that his children wouldn't be Lord/Lady.

It has been reported that the Queen offered to make Anne’s children’s HRH’s like their cousins and Anne turned it down. 

23 minutes ago, Fostersmom said:

Wasn't the story always Kate was crazy upset that Meghan didn't want the bridesmaids wearing tights and this was somehow a huge issue to Kate? Makes much more sense that it actually was Kate making Meghan cry about it rather than Meghan making Kate cry about it. 

It makes sense to me that Kate cried since she gave birth not long before the wedding. Hormones suck and it is well known that Kate had horrible pregnancies. They both had reasons so be emotional.

21 minutes ago, Arkay said:

Agreed. But so is Archie. Edward is a prince, the son and not grandson of the monarch as Harry is, and he seems fine without his children being prince and princess. The whole issue here is that Meghan seemed desperately upset about Archie not being titled as a prince. I know she said it's due to security funding, which is a serious issue, but they can have their own security. I do think she cares about the title for its own sake. She doesn't shy away from calling herself a duchess.

Archie will be a prince when Charles is King unless they chose to deliberately withhold that title. Choosing to not give it to him at birth is petty. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size