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

[Estel]

The Queen in fact does have the right to decide what Archie's title might be. Just as she gave the titles Duke and Duchess of Sussex as a wedding present. Which she might not have done had they disclosed that they were thinking of leaving before they even got married (as hinted in the interview with "2 years" statement).

I would have been fine with it if she had issued LPs but she didn't and at the time *everything* surrounding Archie's birth was top secret and all about how they wanted him to have a normal childhood. And then a few months after they left so everyone was right that he didn't need a title.

As the rules now stand he will get an HRH when/if his grandfather becomes King.

They were the ones who said they didn't want the title, and now they're the ones who are saying they didn't have a say. N yet, still, they're the ones who have been wronged. You just cannot make this up!

 

[Durham]

How do you misremember multiple conversations in which a RF member voiced concern regarding the child’s color. That line is appalling and shows that they don’t get it.

Wasn't it just one conversation rather than multiple?

 

[soapstar]

How do you misremember multiple conversations in which a RF member voiced concern regarding the child’s color. That line is appalling and shows that they don’t get it.

Well to be fair, Meghan and Harry are having a hard time remembering it too. Meghan (who was told about the discussion from Harry), says it happened during her pregnancy and implied it was multiple discussions, while Harry says it was one conversation and happened during the beginning of their relationship.

 

[Estel]

If you are telling a story as a couple at an interview how difficult is it, ot make sure you both say the same thing?

They only had that one job.

 

[Heavs]

How do you misremember multiple conversations in which a RF member voiced concern regarding the child’s color. That line is appalling and shows that they don’t get it.

Because even Harry and Meghan didn't get the story straight. They told two different versions on camera. And Meghan's was a 3rd hand account.

Add to that we have no context. The comment could have been "I wonder between your pale gingerness and Meghan being biracial how dark your children might be?" or "be prepared for the press to be nasty if you have a dark skinned child" or even "Amazing, can't wait to see how dark the kids are, will be great for the family!"

Some of those are "awkward" insensitive or uncomfortable but not malicious.

I wondered if they would actually clarify that statement but then it just gives more ammunition to everything. And the statement basically politely called them liars but without enough to go on CBS Morning tomorrow and respond.

 

[tommy100]

How do you misremember multiple conversations in which a RF member voiced concern regarding the child’s color. That line is appalling and shows that they don’t get it.

You can 'recollect them" differently - especially if they didn't happen. Meghan and Harry told different stories about it themselves - one said it was as Archie was expected, another said it was just as they started dating. H&M have shown they recollect things differently so factually the BP statement is true. We can add our own thoughts on exactly what may have been meant by that part of the statement but they remain our thoughts and opinions. If you look at it from a middle point of view I don't think there is much to disagree with in the BP statement.

I refuse to get hung up on the most vague and confused part of the interview. I would also say if one comment by a member of the RF makes you racist then I wonder what that makes Harry - the Nazi outfit, the racial slur to a fellow soldier...judge those by the same standards and where do we end up.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Overall, I think this interview was short-sighted at best, incredibly stupid at worst. But Meghan made one very good point that stuck with me:

The UNTRUE story that Meghan made Kate cry in the runup to the wedding took on a life of its' own and has become part of Meghan Lore. No one...not a single person...from BP or Kensington Palace stepped in to refute this story when it appeared in Vanity Fair.

But last summer when the unflattering "Catherine The Great" story and cover came up in Tatler, the BRF was fast and furious to defend Kate point by point.

That Meghan feels bitter/aggrieved by this doesn't surprise me in the least. And I don't blame her.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Below is a comment from the previous thread that I want to respond to because I don't think an American audience understands anything about the British system of titles, and M&H didn't discuss the issue of titles in a detailed way. In other words, it's not clear to me whether M&H rejected giving Archie the Lord/ Viscount title which is a rightful courtesy. Or whether M&H decided not to use that courtesy title because they had been told that not only would Archie not receive the LP for the HRH/Prince title at birth, but that even when Charles becomes King, Archie would not receive the HRH/Prince title.

This is confusing because of all the press stories put out at the time Archie was born suggested that Harry wasn't interested in Archie having a title. I remember a lot of royal fans were upset at the time that M&H didn't use any title for Archie. Well, apparently the reasons why have to do with them being told Archie wasn't ever going to receive HRH/Prince. This is one part of the Oprah interview I wish would be further clarified.

This is all laid out in the Succession Act of 2013, as of right now Archie isn't entitled to be called a Prince. However, once Charles becomes King he will automictically become one. It's an act of Parliament. Harry knows this and I have NO DOUBT Meghan knows it as well. Apparently they wanted the Queen to make Archie a prince right away. But he will be one someday when Charles is king. Honestly Meghan should have corrected Oprah.

The intricacies of titles in the British royal family system seem quite complicated and confusing. In any case, the point is: M&H were apparently told that Archie would not be receiving the HRH title at birth in the same way as all of the Cambridge siblings. Only Prince George as a direct heir was entitled to HRH/Prince title. The Queen issued LPs ahead of Charlotte's birth so that all of the Cambridge siblings would receive HRH Prince/Princess titles, and not have to wait until Charles becomes king.

Most likely, Harry anticipated that his offspring would be treated similarly. And Harry may even have been told by his father and QE-II, his grandmother, well before meeting Meghan that the same provision would be extended to all of his offspring. It would not be unprecedented in view of the fact that Prince Andrew as the Queen's second son, had the privilege of his daughters receiving HRH/Princess titles. Edward as the third son also has the privilege, but it was decided to give Lord/ Lady titles to Edward's children, and allow them the discretion of choosing whether to take on the HRH titles at age 18 (it has recently been reported that they will decide against accepting). But then again, Edward is the third son and the youngest of four children.

Meanwhile, Harry is the second of only two children of the direct heir, and he was expected to have a major role in a slimmed down monarchy. So why wouldn't his offspring be treated with the full courtesies that are possible? I'm not certain that M&H were upset about Archie not having the LP courtesy issued in order to receive the HRH/Prince at birth. My understanding from the interview is that Harry was told Archie would never receive the HRH/Prince title, not even when Charles becomes King.

It would be a good thing for us all to realize there are so many things that are said and that occur behind-the-scenes between the royals over the course of their lives that are never fully revealed. So Harry may have reasonably felt that his family was reneging on promises they had originally made to him, simply because he chose to marry Meghan. This brings into question the sense that certain members of the royal family always had some reservations about Meghan, not for herself necessarily, but because of her background and heritage.

Oprah didn't understand the issue of British titles well enough to be able to probe more closely with follow-up questions for better clarity.

 

[kathia_sophia]

I feel so confused about all this, especially about Archie's title. I do remember that when he was born, H and M wanted him to have a normal childhood, and thus was not given the title of a son of a duke (or did I misread it back then?). Now it seems they want Archie to be prince for his protection, but his title was denied when he was born...I'm so confused...


As for the race comment...There are petty people, but does one has to take it seriously? I mean, we hear so many awful things everyday, of course, I am against racism and such, but if we were to get angry at every little comment, then we wouldn't have a life... A woman told my young cousin that she had speech problems and should see a doctor (girl is healthy, she is just a little shy), my aunt heard this and got furious and everything became pretty nasty (something that could have been avoided if approached in a different way).


To be honest, I wouldn't want to be friends/acquaintance with Meghan. I would even fear to speak to her (I am a good person, but sometimes we say things that we don't mean). We are now at a time where freedom of speech is being lost, everything is seen as "racism" or "personal attacks"...

 

[Erin9]

How do you misremember multiple conversations in which a RF member voiced concern regarding the child’s color. That line is appalling and shows that they don’t get it.

Maybe because Meghan and Harry can’t remember-or lied- about whether it was one or multiple conversations. Nor could they keep it straight when this alleged racist comment was made.

People do remember things differently. I see no reason to just take the Sussexes word for things- especially when their own stories vary considerably.

 

[Estel]

You can 'recollect them" differently - especially if they didn't happen. Meghan and Harry told different stories about it themselves - one said it was as Archie was expected, another said it was just as they started dating. H&M have shown they recollect things differently so factually the BP statement is true. We can add our own thoughts on exactly what may have been meant by that part of the statement but they remain our thoughts and opinions. If you look at it from a middle point of view I don't think there is much to disagree with in the BP statement.

These are just claims that can never be verified. So, I don't get it, why should the RF accept or reject that such a thing was said when it is all he said, she said. I personally believe that the context in which it was said really matters. Maybe someone was wondering whether the baby would look like its mom or dad, and these two turned it into a race issue as they are often known to do.
Or maybe, it was Harry himself who was wondering about it, given his racist remarks in the past.

 

[Denville]

These are just claims that can never be verified. So, I don't get it, why should the RF accept or reject that such a thing was said when it is all he said, she said. I personally believe that the context in which it was said really matters. Maybe someone was wondering whether the baby would look like its mom or dad, and these two turned it into a race issue as they are often known to do.
Or maybe, it was Harry himself who was wondering about it, given his racist remarks in the past.

yes Does Meghan know that her husband did this?

and it seems acc to harry this remark was made when they were dating.. whereas acc to Meghan it was during her pregnancy.... - or maybe never said at all....

 

[Estel]

Overall, I think this interview was short-sighted at best, incredibly stupid at worst. But Meghan made one very good point that stuck with me:

The UNTRUE story that Meghan made Kate cry in the runup to the wedding took on a life of its' own and has become part of Meghan Lore. No one...not a single person...from BP or Kensington Palace stepped in to refute this story when it appeared in Vanity Fair.

But last summer when the unflattering "Catherine The Great" story and cover came up in Tatler, the BRF was fast and furious to defend Kate point by point.

That Meghan feels bitter/aggrieved by this doesn't surprise me in the least. And I don't blame her.

Why should anyone refute it if it was true? Again, it is he said, she said. We cannot know who is speaking the truth.
Besides, if RF were to refute everything that came out in the press, they would've put an end to all the Camilla vilification that continues to this day, as if she was the only woman to commit adultery on the entire planet!

 

[leticia.h]

I just want them stripped of their titles. What's the point anyway?

They can't stand how the family/firm works, they want to have a life out of it, they are bad mouthing their own family and the institution.

I doubt the Windsors will do that now but I hope once Charles is king, there'll be no more duke or duchess of sussex.

 

[Estel]

yes Does Meghan know that her husband did this?

and it seems acc to harry this remark was made when they were dating.. whereas acc to Meghan it was during her pregnancy.... - or maybe never said at all....

I know. People were quick to point to Prince Philip when neither his comments nor his antics were half as offensive as Harry's. Has Harry ever apologized for them? I see that the racism towards South Asians gets downplayed very often, and people are given a pass. He said the P-word/raghead, but it's fine. Would he have gotten away just as easily if it was the N-word? As an Indian, this all sounds very unfair to me.

 

[Kellydofc]

Below is a comment from the previous thread that I want to respond to because I don't think an American audience understands anything about the British system of titles, and M&H didn't discuss the issue of titles in a detailed way. In other words, it's not clear to me whether M&H rejected giving Archie the Lord/ Viscount title which is a rightful courtesy. Or whether M&H decided not to use that courtesy title because they had been told that not only would Archie not receive the LP for the HRH/Prince title at birth, but that even when Charles becomes King, Archie would not receive the HRH/Prince title.

This is confusing because of all the press stories put out at the time Archie was born suggested that Harry wasn't interested in Archie having a title. I remember a lot of royal fans were upset at the time that M&H didn't use any title for Archie. Well, apparently the reasons why have to do with them being told Archie wasn't ever going to receive HRH/Prince. This is one part of the Oprah interview I wish would be further clarified.



The intricacies of titles in the British royal family system seem quite complicated and confusing. In any case, the point is: M&H were apparently told that Archie would not be receiving the HRH title at birth in the same way as all of the Cambridge siblings. Only Prince George as a direct heir was entitled to HRH/Prince title. The Queen issued LPs ahead of Charlotte's birth so that all of the Cambridge siblings would receive HRH Prince/Princess titles, and not have to wait until Charles becomes king.

Most likely, Harry anticipated that his offspring would be treated similarly. And Harry may even have been told by his father and QE-II, his grandmother, well before meeting Meghan that the same provision would be extended to all of his offspring. It would not be unprecedented in view of the fact that Prince Andrew as the Queen's second son, had the privilege of his daughters receiving HRH/Princess titles. Edward as the third son also has the privilege, but it was decided to give Lord/ Lady titles to Edward's children, and allow them the discretion of choosing whether to take on the HRH titles at age 18 (it has recently been reported that they will decide against accepting). But then again, Edward is the third son and the youngest of four children.

Meanwhile, Harry is the second of only two children of the direct heir, and he was expected to have a major role in a slimmed down monarchy. So why wouldn't his offspring be treated with the full courtesies that are possible? I'm not certain that M&H were upset about Archie not having the LP courtesy issued in order to receive the HRH/Prince at birth. My understanding from the interview is that Harry was told Archie would never receive the HRH/Prince title, not even when Charles becomes King.

It would be a good thing for us all to realize there are so many things that are said and that occur behind-the-scenes between the royals over the course of their lives that are never fully revealed. So Harry may have reasonably felt that his family was reneging on promises they had originally made to him, simply because he chose to marry Meghan. This brings into question the sense that certain members of the royal family always had some reservations about Meghan, not for herself necessarily, but because of her background and heritage.

Oprah didn't understand the issue of British titles well enough to be able to probe more closely with follow-up questions for better clarity.

You do have several good points. And it is entirely possible that things were told to Harry when he was younger that have now been reassessed. We will likely never know the full details of what happened. The title issue is complex and as monarchies get scaled back might become more so. I do hope it's all sorted before Charlotte and Louis come of age.

 

[American Observer7]

This is a good explanation of the issue. It's from the BBC which is one of the world's premier broadcasters:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56325...he 1917 letter, George,of the Prince of Wales.

Thank you. But I had no idea BBC said the same thing. I actually have not seen BBC in a while. What I posted was all me.?

 

[Sunnystar]

That statement from BP is brilliant. I adore the "recollections may vary" line and that they'll address everything privately. BOOM. That's a thankyouverymuchyouredone statement if there ever was one.

My take on the varied recollection of the racist comment... Harry had one conversation, early when he was dating Meghan. At some point when she was pregnant, he shared it with her and she got upset and wouldn't let it lie with just one discussion between them. So, I think it is equally true that Harry had one conversation with a family member and Meghan/Harry had multiple conversations during her pregnancy, and all of what Meghan heard was secondhand because Harry didn't want her confronting the family member who made the original comment.

 

[TLLK]

Overall, I think this interview was short-sighted at best, incredibly stupid at worst. But Meghan made one very good point that stuck with me:

The UNTRUE story that Meghan made Kate cry in the runup to the wedding took on a life of its' own and has become part of Meghan Lore. No one...not a single person...from BP or Kensington Palace stepped in to refute this story when it appeared in Vanity Fair.

But last summer when the unflattering "Catherine The Great" story and cover came up in Tatler, the BRF was fast and furious to defend Kate point by point.

That Meghan feels bitter/aggrieved by this doesn't surprise me in the least. And I don't blame her.

I certainly agree that Meghan has every right to feel aggrieved about the reported "tears" story, but I do wonder why the Sussexes never chose to release their own statement on the subject? They could have done so via their then KP communications team or their later one when they had offices at BP. Now to be fair I could understand the couple receiving advice that releasing a statement might not end the non stop tabloid stories, but again I'm surprised that they didn't say anything until the interview.



Regarding the Tatler story, it was not the BRF with the statement but rather the Cambridges via their KP office. And it's not the first time that the Cambridges have released a statement via their KP office as the Queen, PoW etc..appear to permit the individuals involved to release their own replies.

Today, Kensington Palace issued a formal response to a Tatler article calling into question its validity.

A Kensington Palace spokesperson said: “This story contains a swathe of inaccuracies and false misrepresentations which were not put to Kensington Palace prior to publication.”

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/s...sington-palace-kate-middleton-tatler-comment/

 

[Lucy Scot]

''Some accounts may vary'' is saying you don't care and you don't believe what they're saying...

Yes, it is the equivalent of when people say "Mistakes were made", instead of apologizing and admitting guilt. It shows a lack of sincerity and understanding. Not a good look.

 

[Denville]

You do have several good points. And it is entirely possible that things were told to Harry when he was younger that have now been reassessed. We will likely never know the full details of what happened. The title issue is complex and as monarchies get scaled back might become more so. I do hope it's all sorted before Charlotte and Louis come of age.

I can't imagine why Harry woudl expect nowadays that his son would be given the HRH. He is going ot have it when Charles is King.. (Unless things change by then).
and since Harry's gone off to republican America, what does he want a title for Archie for? Or himself come to that.
most European monarchies have scaled back the number of HRH's for members, except for the heir.. just as they have scaled back the "doing royal duties" people. Charles intended Harry and Will to work as royals.. but that doesn't mean that H's son would be HRH until he, Charles, was king...
and the issue of the title has nothning to do with the security as H shoudl damn well know.

 

[Muhler]

I feel so confused about all this, especially about Archie's title. I do remember that when he was born, H and M wanted him to have a normal childhood, and thus was not given the title of a son of a duke (or did I misread it back then?). Now it seems they want Archie to be prince for his protection, but his title was denied when he was born...I'm so confused...


As for the race comment...There are petty people, but does one has to take it seriously? I mean, we hear so many awful things everyday, of course, I am against racism and such, but if we were to get angry at every little comment, then we wouldn't have a life... A woman told my young cousin that she had speech problems and should see a doctor (girl is healthy, she is just a little shy), my aunt heard this and got furious and everything became pretty nasty (something that could have been avoided if approached in a different way).


To be honest, I wouldn't want to be friends/acquaintance with Meghan. I would even fear to speak to her (I am a good person, but sometimes we say things that we don't mean). We are now at a time where freedom of speech is being lost, everything is seen as "racism" or "personal attacks"...

I could not agree more wholeheartedly!

We all say something stupid or unfortunate from time to time, and if we are to whacked on the head each time that happens, the planet will soon be very quiet...
A little overbearing and forgiveness will go a long way - we will need that in return, when it's our turn to step in it.

Apart from that I find the statement from the BRF to be a safe bet.
It denies any form of racism as at worst unintentional, while looking into it. - Which means that if H&M persists, they will be the ones to escalate the conflict.

The remarks about keeping any other strife within the family is to be expected and the best way of handling it IMO.

They are standing their ground - in public - while not escalating the conflict.

Glancing through some comments in British papers you'd be forgiven for thinking this is the worst crisis the BRF has faced for centuries. Really?
King Edward abdicating?
King Charles beheaded?
An inexperienced Queen Victoria?
Napoleon at the Channel in 1804?
The Blitz? There were only a few hundred fighters and the remnant of three divisions between the Germans and an extended exile in Canada.
1588?
The coup ousting the Stuart line?
- This is merely an annoying fly.

 

[Osipi]

The intricacies of titles in the British royal family system seem quite complicated and confusing. In any case, the point is: M&H were apparently told that Archie would not be receiving the HRH title at birth in the same way as all of the Cambridge siblings. Only Prince George as a direct heir was entitled to HRH/Prince title. The Queen issued LPs ahead of Charlotte's birth so that all of the Cambridge siblings would receive HRH Prince/Princess titles, and not have to wait until Charles becomes king

Just a slight correction here. The Queen issued LPs giving all the Cambridge children the right to the HRH and Prince/ss titles before *George* was born. The LPs were issued in December 2012 and George was born in 2013. ?

This was to ensure that because of the recent amendment to the Act of Succession implementing absolute primogeniture, the heir to the heir to the heir to the throne would be an HRH and Prince/ss. Otherwise, if Charlotte was born first, she wouldn't have been titled as such but her brother, the second child, would be as the first *male* son of the heir to the heir to the throne.

 

[Estel]

I can't imagine why Harry woudl expect nowadays that his son would be given the HRH. He is going ot have it when Charles is King.. (Unless things change by then).
and since Harry's gone off to republican America, what does he want a title for Archie for? Or himself come to that.
most European monarchies have scaled back the number of HRH's for members, except for the heir.. just as they have scaled back the "doing royal duties" people. Charles intended Harry and Will to work as royals.. but that doesn't mean that H's son would be HRH until he, Charles, was king...
and the issue of the title has nothning to do with the security as H shoudl damn well know.

Harry wants everything without working for nothing. Somebody elsewhere made a great point about how American celebrity comes without responsibility. That's why they're craving for it.

 

[Moran]

The BP statement was a class act. Never lower yourself to the level the Sussexes brought themselves to but make it abundantly clear that the other side's "recollection" isn't the truth. No ammo for the pair of professional victims. At this level, I wonder if Meghan even called the Queen. They can - and do - say whatever they feel raise their royalty - pun intended - safe in the knowledge that the palace would never state their version.



Call me callous but I never got this "the tabloids ruined my life"! attitude from Meghan. They didn't and neither did the social media. Yes, it wasn't nice but who made her read them? Who made Harry obsessively read everything printed about him in the media and go cold because someone said something nasty? Did their livelihood depend on this? Would Meghan be "fired" as Duchess and member of the royal family if there were too many negative stories about her in papers everyone knows are rugs? She was adored by the wide public every time she made an appearance. I distinctly remember the crowd chanting "Meghan, Meghan!" as she grinned from ear to ear, flaunting her open coat over a flat belly at Eugenie's wedding. But instead of the adoration of the British public, they chose to focus on the tabloids.

 

[Estel]

I could not agree more wholeheartedly!

We all say something stupid or unfortunate from time to time, and if we are to whacked on the head each time that happens, the planet will soon be very quiet...
A little overbearing and forgiveness will go a long way - we will need that in return, when it's our turn to step in it.

Apart from that I find the statement from the BRF to be a safe bet.
It denies any form of racism as at worst unintentional, while looking into it. - Which means that if H&M persists, they will be the ones to escalate the conflict.

The remarks about keeping any other strife within the family is to be expected and the best way of handling it IMO.

They are standing their ground - in public - while not escalating the conflict.

Glancing through some comments in British papers you'd be forgiven for thinking this is the worst crisis the BRF has faced for centuries. Really?
King Edward abdicating?
King Charles beheaded?
An inexperienced Queen Victoria?
Napoleon at the Channel in 1804?
The Blitz? There were only a few hundred fighters and the remnant of three divisions between the Germans and an extended exile in Canada.
1588?
The coup ousting the Stuart line?
- This is merely an annoying fly.

I think people should be forgiven for thinking this is nothing short of an apocalypse.

 

[RoyalNight]

I could see a discussion about marrying a biracial woman and having mixed children happening. It was just another thing to consider - whether Harry is ready to face racist comments about his wife and potential kids. I could imagine line of thinking - darker the child, harsher the comments.

It's not ok, but that's a reality. Racism is still out there, and Meghan and Archie have faced it.
Is it bad to think ahead and speculate what mixed-race children might face from tabloids and online haters?

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

I can't imagine why Harry woudl expect nowadays that his son would be given the HRH. He is going ot have it when Charles is King.. (Unless things change by then).
and since Harry's gone off to republican America, what does he want a title for Archie for? Or himself come to that.
most European monarchies have scaled back the number of HRH's for members, except for the heir.. just as they have scaled back the "doing royal duties" people. Charles intended Harry and Will to work as royals.. but that doesn't mean that H's son would be HRH until he, Charles, was king...
and the issue of the title has nothning to do with the security as H shoudl damn well know.

Not only have the continental European RFs downsized, but do not expect the younger siblings of the heir to do insane amounts of royal work -- they have the freedom to pursue their own careers and are called upon to serve the respective Crown when required. If you scale back, you scale back the whole lot, not pick and choose.

 

[Denville]

Harry wants everything without working for nothing. Somebody elsewhere made a great point about how American celebrity comes without responsibility. That's why they're craving for it.

well yes American celebrity does come without responsibility.. but all the same, a lot of American celebs have worked hard to make the money that makes them a celeb... I may not care for how they acquired the money, like trashy tv shows or the like but they have done something to get their cash. Harry, it seems, left the RF with a pretty good fortune.. but then found that his father wasn't going to give him a generous allowance indefinitely, and so far has not done ANYTHING work wise to earn money. He may find that even the American celebs start to think poorly of him...

 

[Estel]

Not only have the continental European RFs downsized, but do not expect the younger siblings of the heir to do insane amounts of royal work -- they have the freedom to pursue their own careers and are called upon to serve the respective Crown when required. If you scale back, you scale back the whole lot, not pick and choose.

Then according to their own words, Meghan was given the choice to continue acting. They put it across as if it were a bad thing, huh.