Oprah with Harry and Meghan: A CBS Primetime Special

[statsgirl]

I am still trying to wrap my head around that the Royal Family support all manner of useless minor royalty but said that Meghan needed to keep acting because there was no money for her. Then refusing to defend Meghan from the ugly comments because it kept Andrew's association with Epstein and William's affair out of the headlines.

I don't know how Harry and Meghan stood it as long as they did.

[Growsonwalls]

2 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

I am still trying to wrap my head around that the Royal Family support all manner of useless minor royalty but said that Meghan needed to keep acting because there was no money for her. Then refusing to defend Meghan from the ugly comments because it kept Andrew's association with Epstein and William's affair out of the headlines.

I don't know how Harry and Meghan stood it as long as they did.

Andrew definitely. But if they wanted to keep William's affair out of the headlines they did a very poor job as the headlines definitely were plastered with salacious news about William's affair. They even went so far as to follow him on a ski trip and they found out Kate wasn't on the trip. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

Watching it for a second time.   Oprah is pretty challenging, almost antagonistic towards Harry, LOL.  He handles himself well.

How were you........... literally a prince, living a life of privilege........... TRAPPPPPPED?  

😄

7 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

I am still trying to wrap my head around that the Royal Family support all manner of useless minor royalty but said that Meghan needed to keep acting because there was no money for her. Then refusing to defend Meghan from the ugly comments because it kept Andrew's association with Epstein and William's affair out of the headlines.

I don't know how Harry and Meghan stood it as long as they did.

I don't get any of this either.  They want Meghan to go to Hollywood and keep acting, but she's not allowed to go out and eat with her friends?  I ....... what kind of acting did they envision for her?  Like monologues from the palace on Zoom?

Edited March 8, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Growsonwalls]

1 minute ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Watching it for a second time.   Oprah is pretty challenging, almost antagonistic towards Harry, LOL.  He handles himself well.

How were you........... TRAPPPED?  

😄

I think Oprah being a self-made woman has less natural empathy for Harry.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Unless I missed it when I was reading comments here and watching the interview, did the question about Meghan's "bullying" of the emails at 5:00 am to staff make it in? I distinctly remember seeing that question in the previews/trailers for the special.

[ursula]

35 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

After watching this interview I worry more about Harry than Meghan. Meghan seems to be made of sterner stuff. 

She’s a Strong Black Woman.

[MerBearHou]

People believe what they want to believe.  This interview did not change my mind one iota.  I’d be interested in hearing every statement Harry and Meghan made addressed very specifically by the other side.  Otherwise you’re just hearing one side.  I need proof and specifics — not just word salads carefully chosen to elicit sympathy.  

Edited March 8, 2021 by MerBearHou

[Growsonwalls]

3 minutes ago, MerBearHou said:

People believe what they want to believe.  This interview did not change my mind one iota.  I’d be interested in hearing every statement Harry and Meghan made addressed very specifically by the other side.  Otherwise you’re just hearing one side.  I need proof, not just words.  

Ok so you don't believe the BRF could be racist, assy, and insensitive? Interesting.

[Ms Blue Jay]

There will not be proof when someone is sharing their experiences.  There will not be proof or names named when people are scared for their lives because their own mother or their husband's mother was killed by the press.  This isn't the theft of a car caught on video camera.  

Racism doesn't always have proof.  Sometimes it does, and Meghan has a lot of it -- it was in the press for all of us to see and read.  But it's not fair to discount every charge of racism unless there's "proof".  There is enough racism that's dismissed and tolerated when there IS proof.

This reminds me of Dave Chappelle speaking about Rodney King.  He made an exaggerated joke that until those pictures were shared in Newsweek, white people didn't really know about racism.   Rodney King happened 30 years ago.  Chappelle made the joke 20 years ago.  And there's still demands for "proof"?

Edited March 8, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[PepSinger]

Asking a Black woman to prove the racism and sexism that she's experienced is textbook gaslighting. Why is the onus placed upon the oppressed to prove their oppression?

[MerBearHou]

2 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

There will not be proof when someone is sharing their experiences.  There will not be proof or names named when people are scared for their lives because their own mother or their husband's mother was killed by the press.  This isn't the theft of a car caught on video camera.  

If you go on national television and make these statements, you should be able to back it up.  Courtrooms are filled with people sharing their experiences from both sides. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

This is not a courtroom and has nothing to do with one.  

[Trini]

6 minutes ago, MerBearHou said:

People believe what they want to believe.  This interview did not change my mind one iota.  I’d be interested in hearing every statement Harry and Meghan made addressed very specifically by the other side.  Otherwise you’re just hearing one side.  I need proof and specifics — not just word salads carefully chosen to elicit sympathy.  

Pretty sure the "other side" will also have 'word salads. Yes, people will believe what they want to believe.

[Growsonwalls]

7 minutes ago, MerBearHou said:

If you go on national television and make these statements, you should be able to back it up.  Courtrooms are filled with people sharing their experiences from both sides. 

Was Meghan supposed to have taped convos? Texts? 

This is victim blaming FYI.

[MerBearHou]

Just now, Growsonwalls said:

Was Meghan supposed to have taped convos? Texts? 

This is victim blaming FYI.

Again, I don’t believe any of it and I think Harry is a weak, easily led, damaged man and Meghan is a very savvy conniver.  It has nothing to do with race.  So no, I’m not victim blaming because I don’t think for one second that Meghan is a victim, except in her own mind when things don’t go her way.  I’m out.  

[Dani]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

It's interesting that Oprah said no questions were off the table, and Meghan nodded, that she understood that. But did she agree she would answer them all? I don't think she did, so a lot of ambiguity, but Harry flat out said he wouldn't reveal who in the family he had that conversation about Archie's skin color.

I don’t think it’s ambiguity but a common journalism phrase. With big interviews the interviewer is often limited in what they can ask as part of the agreement. That way the celeb doesn’t have to look like they are dodging a question. It really just means Oprah could ask anything she wanted. It doesn’t guarantee an answer. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Dani

[Growsonwalls]

10 minutes ago, MerBearHou said:

Again, I don’t believe any of it and I think Harry is a weak, easily led, damaged man and Meghan is a very savvy conniver.  It has nothing to do with race.  So no, I’m not victim blaming because I don’t think for one second that Meghan is a victim, except in her own mind when things don’t go her way.  I’m out.  

Ok when people say "it has nothing to do with race" then it does have something to do with race bc why would you start off with that qualifier?

[Cocoa Puff]

26 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

Asking a Black woman to prove the racism and sexism that she's experienced is textbook gaslighting. Why is the onus placed upon the oppressed to prove their oppression?

 

29 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

There will not be proof when someone is sharing their experiences.  There will not be proof or names named when people are scared for their lives because their own mother or their husband's mother was killed by the press.  This isn't the theft of a car caught on video camera.  

Racism doesn't always have proof.  Sometimes it does, and Meghan has a lot of it -- it was in the press for all of us to see and read.  But it's not fair to discount every charge of racism unless there's "proof".  There is enough racism that's dismissed and tolerated when there IS proof.

This reminds me of Dave Chappelle speaking about Rodney King.  He made an exaggerated joke that until those pictures were shared in Newsweek, white people didn't really know about racism.   Rodney King happened 30 years ago.  Chappelle made the joke 20 years ago.  And there's still demands for "proof"?

FACTS!!! Both of these statements. As a Black darker skinned woman, racism needs to believed first every time! We shouldn't have to jump through hoops to make caucasian people believe us. 

 

Black women need to be protected and believed. 

[Hiyo]

Quote

So no, I’m not victim blaming because I don’t think for one second that Meghan is a victim, except in her own mind when things don’t go her way.

Like all of us, Meghan is a flawed person, she has her faults, and like many of us can probably be an asshole at times, and isn't a saint.

But, none of that excuses the treatment she has gotten from the media and from various people within the Royal Family and The Firm.

Quote

it was in the press for all of us to see and read

I mean, when someone in the media tweets a picture comparing your newborn kid to a monkey...and that's just one example.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Hiyo

[BW Manilowe]

6 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I don't know if I misheard, but I scheduled my dvr anyway, but at the end, Oprah said there wasn't enough time to include everything, so she'll be showing unseen footage tomorrow morning with Gayle.

Yes, that’s what she said.

Edited March 8, 2021 by BW Manilowe
To remove extraneous words.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Great reminders everyone.  I'm taping CBS This Morning tomorrow.  Where I live it says CBS 7 am to 9 am.  

[BW Manilowe]

2 hours ago, statsgirl said:

From the books about Dinah

You mean Diana?

[Cheezwiz]

I think the biggest shocker for me from the interview is that the Palace encouraged Megan to continue acting. I would have have thought that would have been forbidden post-marriage as unseemly.

I had assumed maybe Charles had mellowed out and developed more empathy for others as he aged. Clearly not. Like many others, I was fooled by his seemingly kind behaviour at the wedding. Sounds like he's been playing the heavy behind the scenes.

I did feel for Harry - you could clearly see the pain on his face when questioned about the rift with his family. I'm glad he is still in regular contact with his Grandmother.

Things they seemed to dance around or I didn't believe completely:

• Megan claiming she knew almost nothing about the Royal family and didn't research Harry when they met. Oh, c'mon lady, that is just straight up BS. There are photos of her outside Buckingham palace as a teen, and school friends have said she spoke obsessively about the Royals at that age.
• The timing of their announcement. I get that their impending departure wasn't news to their immediate family, and they had been in pre-negotiations with the Queen of some sort for months, but generally something of that nature is done via official announcement, and they beat the palace to the punch. I think that's what people are talking about when they mention the Queen being "blind-sided".

In any case, I hope they find some measure of peace in their current home and can enjoy raising their children.

[Umbelina]

I thought it was good.  A couple of things not mentioned much so far here?

When Meghan said (basically) that the palace/firm protects others by LYING FOR THEM, and she was just asking them to TELL THE TRUTH about her, but was refused, so the press ran even more wild.

That the Palace gives parties for the press!  Hosted by royals!

Andrew only got one mention, but my strong feeling is that the reason the palace kept allowing lies about Meghan, and even today seems to throw red meat about her to the tabloids (she "bullied a staff member" and we are investigating!" etc.) is that as long as the press is tearing Meghan apart, The Queen's darling Andrew is left alone.  I mean seriously, if there is a story here for the press to go after, a story with substance?  It's Andrew.

Yet, it's all Meghan all the time, and has been for years.  I believe that is deliberate, and I believe that members of the "firm" (and I include horrid Charles in that) would rather have the press go after Meghan, than Camilla, or especially the Queen's favorite?  Andrew.  So not only was Meghan (and thus Harry and Archie) unprotected there, and not allowed to speak for themselves?  They are fodder to save other royals, and to keep the press from actually investigating important things, the future Queen, and the future King's disgusting brother.

Props to Meghan for not saying that straight out.  Although with the interview tomorrow?  She may.  I wouldn't blame her.

I do think Harry told her who said that about Archie's skin color, I think it was more than one person, one is the future King, and the other the Queen's husband.  MUCH too explosive to share, probably the end of the monarchy.

ETA

Harry brought up Diana a lot, in little ways, but she always seemed there.  I couldn't help but think that part of the falling out with his father was Harry working to protect his wife, while Charles had refused to protect his, Harry's mum.  

This whole thing would make an explosive novel.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Umbelina
clarified

[Hiyo]

Quote

This whole thing would make an explosive novel.

Get ready for The Crown, season 6!

[GaT]

4 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

The awarding of titles is deeply weird and labyrinth. Like it's "Queen Elizabeth" but it's only "Prince Philip" for ... reasons.

Kings outrank Queens, so Phillip can't be a King because he would outrank Elizabeth who is the actual monarch.

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Unless I missed it when I was reading comments here and watching the interview, did the question about Meghan's "bullying" of the emails at 5:00 am to staff make it in? I distinctly remember seeing that question in the previews/trailers for the special.

It wasn't covered, maybe it will be part of the stuff that's shown tomorrow on CBS This Morning.

[Dani]

My biggest takeaway is that Meghan thought she was marrying into a family and discovered she was marrying into a large corporation. Family businesses are common but not ones that take over every single aspect of your life. How can that not mess with your head?

The thing that floored me was the mention of going to HR for help. We have this image of the royal family as being a handful of people but it really is this massive entity more concerned with it’s own survival than with the family members. I have to wonder how bad it is for the ordinary people who work there. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Dani

[Aulty]

Montecito will wake up to 'Look What You Made Me' blasting from the Sussex' balcony.

I am not sure if all the ravingly positive comments about the queen are 100% true. If you are talking about a screwed, vindictive and racist climate surely the person who spearheaded the firm and family for 60 years isn't an innocent bystander?

Edited March 8, 2021 by Aulty

[Tdoc72]

59 minutes ago, Cheezwiz said:

 

• The timing of their announcement. I get that their impending departure wasn't news to their immediate family, and they had been in pre-negotiations with the Queen of some sort for months, but generally something of that nature is done via official announcement, and they beat the palace to the punch. I think that's what people are talking about when they mention the Queen being "blind-sided".

 

Harry said he wrote to his father and included that the statement would be released on such and such date. They knew. 

[bmoore4026]

OK, I could kick myself for missing this and I need to know: does anyone know if this will be rebroadcast?

[Kromm]

4 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

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.

We all already know what they'll do. Their attacks weren't originally based on defending themselves, it was based on racism and apparently tacit approval by Harry's crap Dad. That still applies. Plus, there's the cottage industry of "Royal watchers/Royal Experts" who make coin off of articles and morning show appearances attacking Meghan, and to a lesser degree Harry. Despite being outted as fakes by that guy on YouTube. It won't even slow them down in their attacks. Money is money. 

[Kromm]

2 hours ago, Hiyo said:

I mean, when someone in the media tweets a picture comparing your newborn kid to a monkey...and that's just one example.

They just lie, ignore specific examples, and insist "the press" was very happy for Meghan, treated her kindly, and because she's an enormous famewhore and bully it's all gone South.  Okay, they don't exactly say those last things precisely... but they mean them. 

[meatball77]

4 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

After watching this interview I worry more about Harry than Meghan. Meghan seems to be made of sterner stuff. 

Megan seems to understand how to ask for help at least.  Harry has that British stiff upper lip deal with it yourself mentality.

[Sir RaiderDuck OMS]

4 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I don't know if I misheard, but I scheduled my dvr anyway, but at the end, Oprah said there wasn't enough time to include everything, so she'll be showing unseen footage tomorrow morning with Gayle.

I was surprised the additional footage didn't end up on either Discovery+ (which carries OWN programming) or Paramount+.

 

4 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

After watching this interview I worry more about Harry than Meghan. Meghan seems to be made of sterner stuff. 

Meghan grew up with a horrid father and a loving mom who had to work her butt off, with finances a constant concern. That will toughen you. Harry was raised in a much more pampered environment.

 

3 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Watching it for a second time.   Oprah is pretty challenging, almost antagonistic towards Harry, LOL.  He handles himself well.

How were you........... literally a prince, living a life of privilege........... TRAPPPPPPED?  

 

3 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

I think Oprah being a self-made woman has less natural empathy for Harry.

Oprah was placing herself in the position of audience members who would have the same question and giving Harry a chance to address it on his terms. It's a common interview technique.

A few more thoughts:

Charles, loathsome as he can be, would have more tact than asking about Archie's potential skin color, and I don't think Harry, with his resentment towards his father, would protect him by flatly refusing to say who brought the topic up and in what context. I'm guessing either Phillip or Andrew. Phillip's a known racist who shoots his mouth off, and Andrew's a conceited jackass. In either case, Harry's refusal to name names would be about keeping himself in QE2's semi-good graces: Phillip's her husband and Andrew her favorite son, and going after either would permanently torch Harry's relationship with Her Majesty. No way he even mentions the incident had Meghan (who was clearly hurt) not brought it up first.

I loved how Harry casually tossed off an aside about Charles not taking his calls, knowing damn well Oprah would follow up on it. Methinks he's more clever about the media than he lets on.

I wasn't aware of their deal with Spotify, but it makes sense: they'll presumably be paid to curate playlists ("Duchess Meghan's Workout Favorites" or whatever) and maybe do a semi-regular podcast. Music streaming is a competitive business, and services have a hard time distinguishing themselves (Led Zeppelin IV, for instance, is the same awesome album no matter which service you use to listen to it). Exclusive celebrity playlists may be the next big thing.

Had no idea Meghan was suicidal, and I don't blame Harry for getting them the fuck out of there, especially when Archie not even being offered a title meant they were already being marginalized. Yanking the security detail, IMHO, was a pure spite move by Chuckles.

 

 

[BW Manilowe]

6 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

Ooh I kind of wonder if Charles is angry that William and Harry are both using their mothers' inheritance? I could see him being petty enough to be mad about that.

If it’s their money, & no conditions were put on what it could be used for, or how it could be used, or when, (like it couldn’t be used until William or Harry—whomever the money belonged to—reached a certain age), or if Charles had to give his consent, if Charles didn’t have to give his consent for its use, it’s his problem if he doesn’t like it being used. William & Harry are adults with families of their own, not children who still need guidance in doing the right things.

[Peace 47]

6 hours ago, Enero said:

He said they wouldn’t have been able to make the exit without having the money his mother left him. The problem with Charles cutting him off was the security issue. The way Harry talk when they announced they were leaving the firm, they were informed that security would be cut off immediately. While this was happening it had been leaked to the public exactly where they were living in Canada. So basically they were up the creek without a pedal. 

This is why Charles sucks, in my opinion.  He is a billionaire outside of the income he gets from his royal role (i.e., if the monarchy were abolished tomorrow, he has personal income streams and properties that he would be entitled to retain because they are his personal property).  You’d think he’d pony up from that personal income stream to pay for his kid’s security needs, as I imagine top-tier private security is astoundingly expensive.  I’d bet Charles had advisors telling him that the optics wouldn’t look good because people wouldn’t understand the difference between his two income streams (and money is fungible), but still, that’s cold to leave your kid high and dry.

[Hiyo]

Quote

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.

I'm not sure how true that is. That might be true for male line-descended gandkids of the sovereign, but there is debate about whether that applies to great-grandchildren. Did William's kids automatically receive their princely titles, or did the Queen have to issue new letters for them?

Quote

Harry repeatedly referred to William as 'trapped'.  I think that shows that he knows Wills doesn't have the options that Harry did

Yeah, to be fair, if there is one decent privilege that Harry and Meghan have, it's that being married to spare makes it much easier to walk away from it all. William and Kate don't get to do that so easily, unless we want a repeat of Edward VIII. Hell, even Charles and Diana didn't have that option.

Quote

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. 

That was Edward's choice, supposedly. Much as Edwards does not have a royal Dukedom title, which was also his choice. Word on the street is he wants his dad's Dukedom and hopes to get it once Phillip is gone.

Also Edward's child is a courtesy viscount, it's a subsidiary title of Edward's as Edward is using his Earldom as his title for now.

Yes, Anne's kids aren't allowed princely titles because Anne is a woman, but again supposedly the Queen wanted to make Anne's son a peer but Anne and her husband said no thanks.

 

[Veronica]

50 minutes ago, BW Manilowe said:

If it’s their money, & no conditions were put on what it could be used for, or how it could be used, or when, (like it couldn’t be used until William or Harry—whomever the money belonged to—reached a certain age), or if Charles had to give his consent, if Charles didn’t have to give his consent for its use, it’s his problem if he doesn’t like it being used. William & Harry are adults with families of their own, not children who still need guidance in doing the right things.

I remember shortly after her death hearing that  Diana had actually left Harry more because she knew William as the future king would have more than enough, but she wanted to make sure Harry would be okay. No idea how true that is, but that’s what I thought Harry meant when he brought up that his mother knew, or however he phrased it. 

[Hiyo]

Quote

Unless Meghan can pick up another acting gig I'm curious how they'd actually survive. Can they just go get a job at Walmart?

Now that's a reality show I would pay to see.

[Kid]

9 hours ago, Runningwild said:

She didn’t even know she was supposed to curtsy to The Queen. 

Give me a break!  Did she just think people had a tick bobbing up and down?  

Edited March 8, 2021 by Kid

[cambridgeguy]

13 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

I'm not sure how true that is. That might be true for male line-descended gandkids of the sovereign, but there is debate about whether that applies to great-grandchildren. Did William's kids automatically receive their princely titles, or did the Queen have to issue new letters for them?

According to wikipedia the Queen did make an announcement saying all of William's kids should have it, so it must not be automatic.  Maybe it would kicked in anyway when Charles takes the throne but they decided not to wait. 

[BW Manilowe]

7 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

But I was awed (okay, I was a tween) with Diana and Charles' wedding, even if I thought he was fugly.

Charles was fugly? So was Diana’s wedding dress, at least in comparison to those of her now daughters-in-law (& maybe some other post-Diana BRF brides).

[BW Manilowe]

8 hours ago, DearEvette said:

I am kinda glad there was not a single mention of Meghan's dad or her horrible sister.  Since they every they did was motivated by cash and publicity there was no need to give them any more of it.

I hope they don’t decide to come out of hiding to comment on the interview.

[Roseanna]

About Archie's title:
 

Quote

 

Under protocols established by George V in letters patent more than 100 years ago in 1917, the children and grandchildren of a sovereign have the automatic right to the title HRH and prince or princess.

At the time Archie was born, he was the great-grandchild of a sovereign, not a grandchild.

George V’s declaration sets out: “The grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of this realm.”

As such, Archie will be entitled to the titles when Prince Charles accedes the throne.

George V’s declaration means that only Prince George, as a great-grandson of the monarch down the direct line of succession to the throne, was originally entitled to be a prince, as he is the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

The Queen did step in ahead of George’s birth to issue letters patent to ensure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s children would have the titles of prince and princess.

But they are children of the future monarch, whereas Archie is not. His father, Harry, is sixth in line to the throne, and will move down the line of succession if William and Kate have more children, and as George, Charlotte and Louis have children of their own.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race

[Kromm]

36 minutes ago, Kid said:

Give me a break!  Did she just think people had a tick bobbing up and down?  

That's twisting and distorting the context she gave. She took considerable time to lay out she meant in THAT circumstance. 

But qualifiers like that just get tossed out, I suppose, because it's less snarkworthy. 

[Hiyo]

Quote

About Archie's title

Technically, he could use any of his dad's (non-royal) subsidiary titles if they really wanted to, if having a title is that important.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Hiyo

[cambridgeguy]

2 hours ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

I loved how Harry casually tossed off an aside about Charles not taking his calls, knowing damn well Oprah would follow up on it. Methinks he's more clever about the media than he lets on.

They're not stupid - given their experience with the press they know exactly how this works.  They're also smart enough to know that criticizing Elizabeth herself is a bad move even though she (presumably) could have limited some of the crap they had to put up with. 

[Kid]

32 minutes ago, Kromm said:

 

But qualifiers like that just get tossed out, I suppose, because it's less snarkworthy. 

That's what happens when you spend the last year whining.  You become snarkworthy.  

Oprah Winfrey, a truly strong woman, is credible and unsnarkworthy.  Oprah had a horrific childhood, and worked her way to the top when it was a lot harder for women, not to mention a black, woman, and you never, EVER hear her whine. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Kid

[Lsk02]

4 hours ago, Hiyo said:

Get ready for The Crown, season 6!

I’d love a scene of Fergie running out to the car teach Meghan how to curtesy! 

[Roseanna]

10 hours ago, Arkay said:

All the wealth and fortune they now have is solely due to Harry's position.

Fame yeas, but Harry's wealth is due to Diana's will. But she didn't have a fortune of her own, all of it is due to her divorce settlement, that is from Charles. 

If her mother hadn't died, Harry wouldn't have had anything and he must have been lived on what fortune Meghan had saved from her salary as an actress. Well, probably Diana would have provided for her son - but if she hadn't divorced, she couldn't have had money to do that.