Prince Harry to Oprah' " my worry is history repeating itself."

[+ WilliamM]

Released by British newspaper

[+ MysticMenace]

https://www.cbs.com/shows/oprah-with-meghan-and-harry-a-cbs-primetime-special/video/i6UW_WTQjLrEeOoObMmlwrFLTTypvuZm/cbs-presents-oprah-with-meghan-and-harry-a-primetime-special/

 

quite an interesting interview. don't you think?

 

analysis on the interview...

Edited March 9, 2021 by JoeMendoza

[CuriousByNature]

https://www.cbs.com/shows/oprah-with-meghan-and-harry-a-cbs-primetime-special/video/i6UW_WTQjLrEeOoObMmlwrFLTTypvuZm/cbs-presents-oprah-with-meghan-and-harry-a-primetime-special/

 

quite an interesting interview. don't you think?

 

analysis on the interview...

I'm a bit upset with the American media for sensationalizing the interview and making statements about there being a large rift in the Royal Family. That is too general a characterization. Oprah did a fine job with her interview, and Meghan and Harry presented themselves well. The Monarchy will not likely comment on any allegations - they won't rally into some sort of defensive counter attack as the media would like. I would expect, at most, a simple statement from the Queen expressing sorrow that Harry and Megan felt it was necessary to move away but that they will always remain an important part of the family. Some of the interview was quite enlightening, and I do not doubt that some members of the extended family would make crass and racist comments about Meghan and Archie - just look at the history of comments made by Prince Philip and Princess Michael of Kent. But it is inacurate for the media to suggest that race was a factor in Archie not receiving titles and separate security. The Monarchy has been streamlining things for several decades in response to public criticism over the number of titled members. I dont think the Queen is under any obligation to confer titles to any great-grandchild, other than those in the most direct line of succession - William's kids. I don't believe that Princess Eugenie's child has received a royal title, nor the grandchildren of Princess Anne, who in fact refused titles for her own kids. I am also unhappy that the media makes references to the 'Royal Family' in general with respect to accusations rather than 'a member/certain members of' - this leads the public to believe that all members are in cahoots with one another and share discriminatory feelings about Meghan. I think this is an irresponsible and unfair characterization, and it only serves to sensationalize the situation. It is also misrepresenting Meghan's words. But those who harbour racist attitudes in the family should not have the advantage of hiding under the Queen's petticoats, or behind the image of the Royal Family as a unit. Poor Queen E. She must throw her hands up in the air trying to manage the turmoil she gets confronted with so often. But it seems she and Harry and Meghan will weather this - and it was great to hear the mutual respect they all share. Hoping this interview might raise awareness of mental health and wellness issues at the very least. ?

Edited March 9, 2021 by CuriousByNature

[Guest]

Well, I have zero sympathy for Meghan if she claims she had no idea her life would be in the spotlight when she married the prince. No reason she couldn't sponsor her hubby for a green card, though, and, once he gets his US citizenship, he could renounce his UK citizenship and the titles that go with it.

[CuriousByNature]

Well, I have zero sympathy for Meghan if she claims she had no idea her life would be in the spotlight when she married the prince. No reason she couldn't sponsor her hubby for a green card, though, and, once he gets his US citizenship, he could renounce his UK citizenship and the titles that go with it.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe that there was no inkling of what might be required. She's a smart cookie. But I also think marrying into the Firm would be overwhelming for anyone not raised to be 'royal'. The general acceptance of ennobled commoners marrying into the Royal Family is barely 100 years old, let alone people without any aristocratic background. Even Princess Margaret apparently held her own royal birth over her mother's head, who, though Queen Consort and the daughter of an Earl, was 'made' royal rather than 'born' royal. Ego upon ego upon ego.

[josh282282]

Well, I have zero sympathy for Meghan

 

Wait, zero empathy? Not even a little? Really?

-Zero empathy for her as she struggled with the tragic diagnosis of MDD, Major Depressive Disorder? And her diagnosis was severe given she was actively suicidal?

- Zero empathy for her as she sought help from multiple places for her terrifying symptoms of depression & thoughts of self-harm, and WAS DENIED?

-Zero empathy for her as she had to hear that person/persons in the Monarchy were concerned that her children's "skin tone" would be too dark?

-Zero empathy for her as she requested over & over, before the pandemic, to be allowed to leave her apartment on the palace grounds & meet up w friends & was refused. She said she saw no one for months.

 

Are you totally lacking in care for others?

Please tell me I misunderstood you.

Please tell me I got you totally wrong.

Surely you are an empathetic person (and retired physician), yes?

I need to think better of you.

Please help me do that.

 

Respectfully yours,

Josh

[+ tassojunior]

Odd, from his usual dress at fancy costume parties you would think he was hoping for history to repeat itself:

 

[+ WilliamM]

Well, I have zero sympathy for Meghan if she claims she had no idea her life would be in the spotlight when she married the prince. No reason she couldn't sponsor her hubby for a green card, though, and, once he gets his US citizenship, he could renounce his UK citizenship and the titles that go with it.

Diana was apparently surprised as well and she was brought up in England.

[BSR]

Diana was apparently surprised as well and she was brought up in England.

Hmm, I don't know if "surprised" is quite the right word. I think of my cousin who married an Army man. She knew what to expect as a military wife, but actually living through it -- the long deployments abroad, long stretches her husband was completely out of contact, his mood/personality changes after the deaths of friends -- was on a whole other level. I think Diana, as young & naive as she was, did have some idea of what royal life would be like, but living it was a completely different dimension.

[+ nycman]

nycman‘s words of advice.....

 

When you’re trying to get away from the press.....you don’t do an interview......with the biggest media star of all time.

 

When you’re trying to reconcile with your family....you don’t air your dirty laundry....with the biggest media star of all time.

 

Millionaires crying to a billionaire about how unfortunate their lives have been?.....seriously?

 

Honestly, I think Harry got involved with a very manipulative woman who knew how to exploit his weaknesses.

[CuriousByNature]

Diana was apparently surprised as well and she was brought up in England.

True enough, but she was a commoner and the daughter of an Earl - while she was no doubt in the top 1% of the social strata it was a far cry from being royal. The chasm between the Monarchy and the rest of the aristocracy is pretty vast, and I think both sides prefer it that way for the most part.

[+ WilliamM]

nycman‘s words of advice.....

 

 

 

 

Honestly, I think Harry got involved with a very manipulative woman who knew how to exploit his weaknesses.

 

Like the Duchess of Windsor? Also an American divorcee? And another somewhat childish Royal male who fell in love.

 

Harry was never King, and is a more sympathetic figure

 

Let see where Harry and his family are five years from now, please

[JulianLondon]

As a Brit it was a very sad interview to watch, the majority of the country had high hopes for them at the time of the wedding.

 

It will be interesting to see how the palace responds. The Queen will take her time and want to know all the facts first. She will not like the assertion that there were racist comments made and will want to know who said what.

 

The interview though I feel didn't really question H&M when they made various claims and seems that many who watched it have already acted as judge and jury. She did marry into a family with centuries of tradition and although she says she wasn't prepared or told about the many and quite onerous responsibilities, Harry does contradict her later to state he explained what that life would entail.

 

Admittedly it can't have been any fun at all for a free spirited young woman in love. It was probably still all a great shock.

 

I personally don't believe there is institutional racism within the family. But of course any racism is unacceptable but they need not have tarnished the whole family (except when the two most senior members Harry later stated weren't responsible) with that brush. By not stating who it was they implicate everyone else. Was that deliberate.

 

But there is often another side to a story and in the U.K. we are innocent until proven guilty, so all I'd like to say before we rush to judge is hear out the other side and keep an open mind.

Edited March 9, 2021 by JulianLondon

[+ MysticMenace]

As a Brit, @JulianLondon, what is the UK public (or your personal) perception of the 'stepping back' from senior royalty responsibilities and the other events that transpired among H&M and the family or the firm. It is hard to decipher whether the rumblings were mostly driven from (American, British) press or media, and I have heard disparate perceptions ranging between blind loyalty to the crown and general indifference to it.

[MscleLovr]

Honestly, I think Harry got involved with a very manipulative woman who knew how to exploit his weaknesses.

 

I live in London and I could not have put it better @nycman. I doubt the interview will change anyone’s pre-existing view on H&M.

 

When Meghan first arrived in the UK, there were several reports of her having come “to find a rich husband”. She befriended various people for help in meeting men, but once she met Harry she dropped those previously useful ‘friends’. I don’t believe for a moment that she didn’t do any research.

 

I noticed Oprah didn’t ask M any tough questions about her behaviour. She didn’t ask about H&M shouting at the Queen’s favourite, long-standing servant, which rightly earned H a reprimand from the Queen. She didn’t ask why M blamed the Palace staff when H&M had handpicked them to run their private office in the Palace.

 

It’s ironic that M blamed Palace officials for not supporting/helping her when they are the ones who tried to bury the several complaints of staff about M’s bullying behaviour.

 

I disliked H&M complaining about being financially cut off, security being cut and the lack of a title for Archie.

1. Diana left H about $15 million on her death; being a child, it was invested on H’s behalf and when he became of age to inherit the money, it was approximately 4x that sum. Why should H expect to get money from his Dad once he ceased to work for the Royal family?

2. Security is provided by the UK Police and it costs the UK taxpayer. Only the senior working members of the Royal family get that protection.

3. M alluded to a “convention” but seemed to me to imply that because of his mixed-race Archie didn’t get a title. It’s a rule (set more than 100 years ago by King George V) that the titles of Prince, HRH etc are awarded only to some (not all) lineal descendants of the reigning Monarch. The children of H would never have been given titles, but H&M could have chosen the courtesy title of Lord for Archie and they chose not to - they registered his birth as Master which is used in the UK for any boy-child.

 

Personally I hope the Queen strips H&M of their remaining titles. And I hope H&M stop seeking publicity, and retreat into anonymity and a quiet life in California.

[MscleLovr]

And for those who want to read more…

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9338421/Royal-revelations-test.html

[+ sniper]

I mean, there are reams of examples all over Twitter of headlines in the British press that scold Megan for doing something they praised Kate Middleton for. And forget the title - she was getting death threats and they said they wouldn't provide security - that was before the kid was born. She doesn't have to be perfect for them ti be more in the wrong. Harry saw the mother of his child suicidal and his family PREVENTING effective assistance. He got out as he should have. But I do think they had unrealistic expectations of financial support afterwards, and they had other options than attempting to monetize his title.

[wsc]

I'm a bit upset with the American media for sensationalizing the interview and making statements about there being a large rift in the Royal Family. That is too general a characterization. Oprah did a fine job with her interview, and Meghan and Harry presented themselves well. The Monarchy will not likely comment on any allegations - they won't rally into some sort of defensive counter attack as the media would like. I would expect, at most, a simple statement from the Queen expressing sorrow that Harry and Megan felt it was necessary to move away but that they will always remain an important part of the family. Some of the interview was quite enlightening, and I do not doubt that some members of the extended family would make crass and racist comments about Meghan and Archie - just look at the history of comments made by Prince Philip and Princess Michael of Kent. But it is inacurate for the media to suggest that race was a factor in Archie not receiving titles and separate security. The Monarchy has been streamlining things for several decades in response to public criticism over the number of titled members. I dont think the Queen is under any obligation to confer titles to any great-grandchild, other than those in the most direct line of succession - William's kids. I don't believe that Princess Eugenie's child has received a royal title, nor the grandchildren of Princess Anne, who in fact refused titles for her own kids. I am also unhappy that the media makes references to the 'Royal Family' in general with respect to accusations rather than 'a member/certain members of' - this leads the public to believe that all members are in cahoots with one another and share discriminatory feelings about Meghan. I think this is an irresponsible and unfair characterization, and it only serves to sensationalize the situation. It is also misrepresenting Meghan's words. But those who harbour racist attitudes in the family should not have the advantage of hiding under the Queen's petticoats, or behind the image of the Royal Family as a unit. Poor Queen E. She must throw her hands up in the air trying to manage the turmoil she gets confronted with so often. But it seems she and Harry and Meghan will weather this - and it was great to hear the mutual respect they all share. Hoping this interview might raise awareness of mental health and wellness issues at the very least. ?

I agree completely regarding the decision, or perhaps more accurately, the policy regarding titles for Archie, and for the increasing number of others that have been or will be relegated to the status of "minor royals."

 

Prince Charles, to a larger extent, and the Queen to a lesser one -she, after all, has less time ahead of her than Charles has ahead of him, and therefore, perhaps, less active interest in a more distant future - are keen to reduce the rolls of those supported by the Sovereign Grant, or the used-to-be-used Civil List, royals supported financially though public monies. As the Queen's children have children, and those children have children, and now even those children are having their own children, the number of members of an extended royal family is growing by leaps and bounds. Boundaries must be set and someone must set them. The most common complaint reported in British opinion polls regarding the Royals is the cost of keeping them in the manner to which we might all like to become accustomed.

 

With William now having three children of his own, the likelihood of any of Harry's children being needed to support royal succession is becoming increasingly remote. This is even more the case for the Queen's other children (Anne, Andrew, and Edward) and their children, and even more so that that, for the Snowden line, descendants of the Queen's deceased sister, Princes Margaret and her husband, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, created Earl of Snowden for his marriage to Margaret. None of the Snowden line have the HRH designation, and the children of Anne and Edward do not use royal titles. Archie, although every ounce a cutie, to be sure, not being named a prince or given the HRH designation, was in line with the policy of limiting membership in the official Royal Family, and not motivated by any prejudice or ill will.

[+ sync]

I'm not for one minute buying the surprise and disappointment Prince Harry and Meghan are trying to pedal. There is no way an American woman of color or a member of the U.K.'s Royal Family could not have known full well that racial bigotry would be front and center.

[wsc]

As a Brit, @JulianLondon, what is the UK public (or your personal) perception of the 'stepping back' from senior royalty responsibilities and the other events that transpired among H&M and the family or the firm. It is hard to decipher whether the rumblings were mostly driven from (American, British) press or media, and I have heard disparate perceptions ranging between blind loyalty to the crown and general indifference to it.

People on the outside looking in might see being a royal as a fairy tale they wish could become true for them; watch almost any holiday Hallmark movie.

 

A privileged life? Yes. Nice homes and cars? Sure. Fame, fortune? Certainly. But I imagine there's also a clear downside to being an HRH.

 

At the highest level, do you realize that Elizabeth (from age 10 on, at least), Charles, or William were probably never asked, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" There's no point to the question for them. They have no choice in the matter. It would literally take an act of Parliament for them to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, or anything other than Queen or King. Their life was always going to be lived in the spotlight, every word scrutinized, every act talked about, any indiscretion publicized and magnified. And much the same fates befall their children, the royal princes and princesses.

 

It's only when you become a distant, minor royal (read that as "irrelevant," which must do wonders for your sense of self-worth), do you begin to have options for your life's work. But you're still saddled with the fame and the spotlight, but in a way that can probably only cause scandal instead of earn praise.

 

Elizabeth I said of Mary, Queen of Scots, before condemning Mary to death, "You were born too close to my throne," meaning Mary was a threat to Elizabeth's life and crown. In a less somber but perhaps still sad sense, Harry was born too close to the throne, as well.

 

Second son of the Prince of Wales, he and his brother, shortly after Harry's birth, were dubbed "an heir and a spare." Catchy phrasing and typically Brit humor, it may still have somewhat stung the younger son, destined to live in the shadow of his older brother, the heir apparent. Photos of Harry as a child make him look impish, which by some accounts, he was. And adorable, too. Pics of him with his mother melt my heart, and images of his face at Diana's funeral bring tears to my eyes. All that grief and sense of loss played out before the eyes of all the world. Harry had some rough spots on his way to adulthood; the Nazi armband and Naked in Vegas come to mind. But he found himself and came into his own in the army. He wanted to be, and seemed largely to have been treated as, "one of the guys." Before Meghan, this might have been his happiest times.

 

I have always had a soft spot for Harry, a sensitive boy growing into a somewhat wounded man, and have sensed a pain somewhere in his soul. I always had, and still have, reservations regarding Meghan; never saw her as a good fit for Harry or the Firm. But she seems to have made Harry happy, and I very much want that for him. If he needs separation from his royal roots and the bad and bitter memories that come from them, I wish him well. He has every right to follow his course toward a happier life.

 

But he and Meghan seem to be struggling with an unprecedented transition and seem, too, to have formed unrealistic expectations of how it should and will go; keeping royal perks and access to the royal purse aren't realistic. I wish them well, but the interview didn't help. People who want a calmer, quieter, less drama-filled existence generally don't go on Oprah to talk about it, and I doubt the interview was Harry's idea.

Edited March 9, 2021 by wsc

[Guest]

Wait, zero empathy? Not even a little? Really?

-Zero empathy for her as she struggled with the tragic diagnosis of MDD, Major Depressive Disorder? And her diagnosis was severe given she was actively suicidal?

- Zero empathy for her as she sought help from multiple places for her terrifying symptoms of depression & thoughts of self-harm, and WAS DENIED?

....

Well, all right. If it's really true (and it's hard to believe) that she was refused help for her mental health problems, then that's pretty bad. But if she has major depression, that's not the fault of the royal household, and that should have been considered before she joined the royal family. Most of what I've heard from them over the years, however, is complaints about not having privacy. That's what I have no sympathy for. Any fool should have anticipated a lack of privacy and a certain loss of freedom when joining the royal household. That's the price of a life of privilege. Some of us have to slog through tough jobs for decades. I wouldn't be whining about something that was completely predictable if I were in her shoes.

And, for God's sake, Princess Diana was not killed by the media. She was killed by her drunk driver, who was traveling at 105 km/h, over twice the speed limit, with blood alcohol levels well over thrice the legal limit. According to Wikipedia: the driver "was later found to have a blood alcohol level of 1.75 grams per liter of blood, which is about 3.5 times the legal limit in France." Being a royal shouldn't give one the right to endanger the lives of others, especially in a republic such as France. Can't just take the attitude that "commoners'," as the British call non-Royals, lives are dispensable. It really gets me hot under the collar when I hear Harry and other Royals blaming the press for her death, rather than placing the blame where it primarily belongs: Diana and her entourage's reckless (but not, in this case, wreck-less) disregard for the lives and safety of others.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Unicorn

[+ WilliamM]

Well, all right. If it's really true (and it's hard to believe) that she was refused help for her mental health problems, then that's pretty bad. But if she has major depression, that's not the fault of the royal household, and that should have been considered before she joined the royal family. Most of what I've heard from them over the years, however, is complaints about not having privacy. That's what I have no sympathy for. Any fool should have anticipated a lack of privacy and a certain loss of freedom when joining the royal household. That's the price of a life of privilege. Some of us have to slog through tough jobs for decades. I wouldn't be whining about something that was completely predictable if I were in her shoes.

And, for God's sake, Princess Diana was not killed by the media. She was killed by her drunk driver, who was traveling at 105 km/h, over twice the speed limit, with blood alcohol levels well over thrice the legal limit. According to Wikipedia: the driver "was later found to have a blood alcohol level of 1.75 grams per liter of blood, which is about 3.5 times the legal limit in France." Being a royal shouldn't give one the right to endanger the lives of others, especially in a republic such as France. Can't just take the attitude that "commoners'," as the British call non-Royals, lives are dispensable. It really gets me hot under the collar when I hear Harry and other Royals blaming the press for her death, rather than placing the blame where it primarily belongs: Diana and her entourage's reckless (but not, in this case, wreck-less) disregard for the lives and safety of others.

Are you blaming Henry's mum for her own death?

[+ tassojunior]

The interview made $7 million.

A cage match in a mud pit between Megan and Kate would undoubtedly top Tiger King ratings.

[kingsley88]

Did Harry ever take a paternity test?

[+ WilliamM]

Glad the Queen has responded with a kind and substantial message to a Harry and his family.