Here is the headline in the LA Times this morning about Oprah's interview last night with Harry and Meghan (last names not required for any participants):
This is wildly wrong. The "palace" did no such thing. Some individual apparently did, but Harry and Meghan were even a little cagey about that. The conversation in question was with Harry, not Meghan—which means that her speculations about motive are meaningless—and Harry didn't provide enough details to know if our mystery person was truly concerned or just shooting the breeze. All in all, genuine concern seems sort of unlikely since (a) from the start, the eventual arrival of a baby was neither unexpected nor a topic of trepidation, [NOTE: Actually, this conversation happened before the marriage.] (b) Harry declined to specify the exact wording of the conversation and Oprah didn't push him on it, and (c) let's be honest here, Meghan is not exactly a dark-skinned woman. There was never any real chance that Archie would be anything but pretty fair skinned.
But who knows? I'm not the royal watcher in my family, and my sister tells me that I'm always wrong about everything. But I did get sucked into watching the interview, and I guess I must be the only person in America who thinks Oprah did a lousy job. It was just softball after softball, never pushing either Harry or Meghan to provide the detail that might allow the rest of us to come to any conclusions.
Of course, Meghan was pretty careful in her answers. One of the big bombshells was Meghan's acknowledgement that at one point she had suicidal ideations. The LA Times interprets this as "driven to the the brink of suicide," which is flatly not what she said. These kinds of thoughts are nothing to make light of, but they are very much not always the same thing as seriously contemplating suicide.
The funny thing about the whole interview is that both Harry and Meghan tried to give the impression that they had literally moved heaven and earth to get some help with their various problems, talking to anyone and everyone they could think of. And yet, I got the distinct impression that this wasn't really the case. Just the opposite, in fact. It seemed more like they talked to individuals here and there but never really followed up in a serious way.
But I don't know for sure, because the interview provided nowhere near enough detail for me to say. In fact, it told me barely anything I didn't already know even though I don't pay a ton of attention to the royals. It sure seemed like a pretty poor excuse for a tell-all to me.
I loathe her intensely, but your statement that there was no chance her kid could be darker skinned because she was so light skinned is factually incorrect.
You're right about skin color of babies.
Black and white babies here are twins:
https://www.thehealthy.com/genetic-disorders/twin-babies-born-with-different-skin-colors/
Yes. Thanks for pointing that out.
Yeah, low chance is not no chance.
Eh. Yes technically correct, but really everyone understood in reality what Drum meant for God's sake. And I am sure we can all be confident that Drum is not so science unaware to not be aware of the potential for low probability variations.
Sanctimonious Lefty wokeness aside.
No I don't think so.
Drum said there was no real chance (i.e. no practical reason to be concerned) he would not be "pretty fair skinned" that is mostly white looking. That's wrong and as a parent of a mixed race kid myself, it is a legitimate practical concern.
Yup.
The quarter African-American Archie could look like Rebecca Hall or Ross Barkley -- also, Brits; also, with one Black grandparent -- but hardly assured.
Honestly I could care less about an anachronism that has clearly outlived any semblance of relevance to history after the second world war.
I’m not sure if that’s right. On the things that people like me value like civil liberties and avoiding dictatorship, constitutional monarchy as a form of government has wildly outperformed both presidential systems and even parliamentary systems with a separate but purely nominal head of state.
I can’t think of any constitutional monarchy (with the possible exceptions of Cambodia and Thailand) that have tipped over into an authoritarian government lead by the monarch. Whereas that tendency towards authoritarianism is widely considered to be baked into the DNA of presidential systems.
If I were an Englishman, I’d think twice. As Joni Mitchell says “ Don't it always seem to go. That you don't know what you've got. Till it's gone”
Couldn't agree more. Constitutional monarchies mostly have a very good track record in recent decades (and a manifestly superior record to that of presidential systems like those in, erm, the USA or The Philippines).
I do think though, that's it a tougher fit in a big country like the UK, and I personally believe they ought to consider keeping the monarchy as intact as possible but making it non-hereditary. That is, keep the Crown, but dump the Windsors.
I think that you’d risk losing what little remain of the monarchy’s “circuit breaker” function. I think you’d end up with a nominal head of state who is subordinate to the “prime minister”. I think the problem with the British monarchy is partly that the queen’s held on too long without grooming successors and partly because she failed to act against Boris when he lied to her. Regardless of how she personally felt about the conservatives and Brexit, her limited authority was being challenged in a way that was deeply unacceptable and essentially rendered the monarchy pointless.
If it makes you happy, there’s a very distinct possibility that HRH will soon be the queen of England and maybe Wales. Boris might actually have the distinction of being the last prime minister of the United Kingdom.
" In fact, it told me barely anything I didn't already know even though I don't pay a ton of attention to the royals. It sure seemed like a pretty poor excuse for a tell-all to me."
All I saw of it was the excerpt/teaser that was on Colbert last week, and it seemed pretty clear to me that it would be just another vapid interview cloaked under BOLD HEADLINES. None of this coverage surprises me.
At the start I wondered about the wisdom of Meghan going public with her side of a dispute in the family. Was anything to be gained? (No.) Wouldn't the interview just make the rift grow wider and any kind of reconciliation become harder if not impossible? (Yes.)
But as I listened more I got the sense that the lies and the pain were so great that Meghan and Harry felt going public was the only recourse. They had a chance to set the record straight and assert their independence from "the firm" and the British press. There will be no going back.
The one who comes off worst, in my mind, is Charles. William, too. By all appearances, neither showed an ounce of courage in sticking up for their son and brother Harry, when the press was telling lies and "the palace" was withdrawing security and treating the Sussexes quite shabbily.
Oprah was a sympathetic interviewer. But her probing was effective and she did a good job.
"Harry and Meghan say palace raised 'concerns'.... This is wildly wrong. The "palace" did no such thing.
Oh, please. When we hear "The White House announced..." in the news, we know the story is not about the building. The word is metonym, a well-known figure of speech.
...my sister tells me that I'm always wrong about everything.
Maybe she should have a blog.
When did 'the Palace announce' concerns?
In the LA Times headline, per Kevin's box.
They are a bit of a dysfunctional family (the Royals--and I'm not talking about KC), but feel compelled not to deal with it.
The solutions to the issues raised seem so obvious from the outside. Of course the Queen should provide security details to her great grandchildren--at least until they are adults (18ish). I'm guessing the "gov't" won't pay for it directly, bu the Queen could have stepped up. Harry and Meghan's children won't have the "security" of income from the Royals, and their parents would have to cover the costs of their college education, and security at college--though the Grandparents could help if they liked from their own income.
As for an interview, it was softball. Felt like was more of a trust building exercise (ok not the right term)--Oprah was there to hear them.
It was not a confrontational interview. Oprah treated them as guests, as she would treat guests on her old TV show. But she did probe and elicited a good deal of info. Sometimes lowering the defenses of the interviewees can be more effective than "hardball" questions.
Agree re the family. For the most public of public families, they are unbelievable tone-deaf to public perception. Some very sensible steps seem to have escaped their grasp.
True. It was indeed a guest on the Oprah Winfrey show, not 60 minutes.
I think if there was ever a chance that the grandparents would want to step up and take care of Harry and Meghan (and their children), that's pretty much gone now. This particular royal family has always been dysfunctional and hidebound but it is somewhat ironic that people about whom we wouldn't care or even have heard of but for their being in the royal family are slagging off the source of their fame and fortune.
Yeah, “the palace ” is not necessarily the royal family just as the White House is not necessarily the prez. I didn’t watch, but from the highlights I saw and read, Meghan seemed more concerned about the institution and the enormous staff that probably goes to extremes to protect the royals’ image (thus, the timing of the announcement of the investigation of Meghan‘a “bullying”, which could have just been her refusal to do what the staff told her to do for the good of the image).
It seemed more that it was Harry who had concerns about the family. You would think that Charles, who was denied his happiness and forced into marrying someone he didn’t want so long ago, with tragic consequences, would know better than to get in the way of his son’s happiness. But that family is obviously a mess. Just H&M going to Oprah should make that clear.
"You would think that Charles, who was denied his happiness and forced into marrying someone he didn’t want so long ago, "
I would think him a spineless jellyfish for giving into parental pressure, and ruining someone else's life. Pitying contempt is about the most I can muster for such a man.
William doesn't need any kind of messy divorce from Kate over his serial philandering, which is what he would have got if he pressed the point of her chavvy racist character.
(I am for damn sure that Kate Middleton is the cause of much of Buckingham Palace intrigue over Harry's negress* bride.)
*These are 60s terms. See also Shadynasty.
I watched the entire thing. All I remember is how annoyed I was about how many commercials there were. And why is it that so many commercials involve people moving in slow motion?
The Brits were apparently horrified by the plethora of pharmaceutical ads we've become so used to. Those ads are not permitted in the UK, nor in much of anyplace other than the U.S. and New Zealand. (?)
Great thread on Twitter with some of the comments:
https://twitter.com/AyeshaASiddiqi/status/1368901637604007939
Just one point. People who are in emotional distress can have the subjective experience of "moving heaven and earth" whilst onlookers can see them as barely doing much. Both of these things are true. In certain states, just talking to someone can require great effort.
People in distress can behave in odd ways, and do strange things to get help.
AND, they really do need help.
many up votes
Great points
I couldn't watch the whole thing. Clearly Harry and Meghan think they are far more important and interesting than they really are. But what I did glean from the show is that the two were not forthcoming. If Oprah had a probing question (not all of them were) she had to ask it three times, and still never got a straight answer. The couple kept their secrets, whatever those might be. I tuned out when Meghan said "...there's a construct at play..." Gibberish.
People don't sit down with Oprah expecting to get the treatment. She's not a journalist. But she let Meghan and Harry tell their story -- that Meghan was treated horribly by the British media, and the palace and other royals did not go out of their way to defend/protect her, so they left. The thing is, that's basically what we knew already.
thanks. this is the summary i needed.
British Tabloids being disgusting .... well how on earth was this not expected by them? And it seems to me the Tabloids run the family rather than vice versa.
That's my question. Brit tabloids are disgusting, and Harry knows that all too well himself, but... didn't warn his American wife about it?
What I don't get is why they pay any attention to the tabloids at all.
I don't think anyone was naive about how brutal the tabloids could be, but I think the ferocity of the racism and bigotry caught them off guard, and then when the palace seemed uninterested in pushing back, that's when things really got bad. I don't think most Americans are aware of just how disgusting the British press was with Meghan. I don't blame them at all for saying fuck it and walking away. Why should they have put up with that shit?
@jte21
For the money. (They spent a lot of interview time complaining about having to pay for their own security.)
Just popping in for a somewhat off topic remark ... what IS this with the britishroyalaphilia that continues to grip the United States? Who do we blame? Walt Disney? The Bros Grimm? Fantasymedievalaphilia driven by too much loincloth&sword video? The reactionary Republican Party?
Definitely NOT the Bros Grimm, not even any of your other suspects.
I point the finger at Queen Elizabeth II and her father King George IV, heck maybe even Queen Victoria. It was Queen Victoria who really amped up the PR aspect of the monarchy with her huge wedding to Prince Albert and embrace of public pomp and circumstance at least as much as one could in the 19th century. King George IV and his family visited the US during WWII was really won over the US public with their "We're just like everyone else" ways including eating hot dogs at a picnic with the Roosevelts at their Hyde Park home.
Queen Elizabeth II took things into high gear with her TV specials, radio broadcasts and then TV broadcasts. Then Diana happened and things really exploded.
I don't think it grips the United States, just a part. But it does grip the US cable & TV business from time to time.
This story is different than the usual Loving the Royals stuff. This is about a fairly well-known American woman of color who makes claims that match, for the most part, the claims made by Diana. The addition of racist "concerns" in the mix is hardly a shock considering the Unbearable Whiteness of the Windsors.
Didn't watch, but would have thought that the three had discussed what would be off-limits, so didn't expect that Winfrey would try to pry.
Noticed some comments on The WaPo site calling for California's child protective services to investigate Meghan because she admitted to having experienced (past tense) situational depression when being subjected to all of that UK press hypocrisy & "The Firm" didn't want it known, so dissuaded her from seeking treatment. Charles & William can apparently be adulterers, & Edward didn't have to be subjected to US questioning about his friendship with Epstein, so what would anyone expect from what is basically a renamed German family that ignored the double press standard for Kate & Meghan?
I don't care about "royals" or celebrities & never watched "Suits," but sympathize with Meghan (& Harry, despite recalling an outcry when he wore a Nazi costume to a party.
HOT TAEK: Diana Spencer is -- well, was -- the worst.
If she were alive, she would be thanking Andrew's special invitation NAMBLA membership for taking the heat off her & the other royals's terribleness.
This goes back to colonial times. Even though the feudal system and concentration of land ownership in the aristocracy wasn't imported to the colonies, we have always had tremendous regard for the British royal family. And that continued and probably intensified after the revolution.
The other point is that a royal family to function as the sovereign and head of state has tremendous advantages over the presidential systems and considerable advantages over parliamentary systems with weak heads of state.
Constitutional monarchies don't seem to have many advantages over parliamentary republics from what I can see. The former include Japan, UK, Sweden, Norway, etc. But the latter include places like Germany, Switzerland, Finland and Ireland. In my view (and in the general view of the poly sci community) parliamentary systems tend to function better than Madisonian/presidential systems; the particular form of ceremonial head of state used by the former doesn't seem to play much of a role either way. Mind you, the continuity, tradition and stability imparted by monarchy is generally desirable (I guess) from the perspective of such countries. But it's not like there's zero price to pay, either, in terms of perpetuation of antiquated notions of class, race and so on. I'd say it's a wash. I do believe, though, that if you're going to have a monarchy, it ought to be as small and as unobtrusive as possible. That's tough to do in a big, English speaking country like the UK that has an important global media/communications hub as its capital. Canada/NZ/Australia get the best of both worlds.
The main advantage of the constitutional monarchy is that the monarch embodies the state and enjoys an independent source of legitimacy. In parliamentary systems, the nominal head of state is simply an appointed subordinate of the head of government. Modern parliamentary systems are looking increasingly presidential, particularly as more countries enact fixed terms which made it nearly impossible for a government to fall.
I do agree that presidential systems are far more inclined towards authoritarianism. Indeed, many scholars say that this tendency is essentially baked into the DNA of presidential systems and so it’s a question of when and not whether they collapse.
I will be happy to volunteer as monarch, if somebody <i.has to do it.
If I were king, there’d be editing on this blog.
Look at that, I can't edit it.
What we need are more royal decrees to do away with this nonsense.
I would vote for you to be king if that would bring editing to this blog.
In all honesty, I think it's that we got away so early on.
If our independence were either younger (as in the Subcontinent) or conditional (as in Canada), would be a lot different.
I'm with Kevin's sister. I though Oprah's interview was very good, not a classic Dan Rather/Mike Wallace 60 Minutes style confrontational interview but an I'm your friend you can tell me anything style of interview more like Barbara Walters.
As for Megan and Harry, I do feel some sympathy for what has happened, the British do have a very cruel streak and Megan brought it out in so many aspects of British society. I laud the couple for not naming names but I also think they had no choice but to say their side of the story in a general way because back in the UK they were being made to be the worst villains since maybe Richard II or at least the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.
If this is their only interview, it worked for me. If they become a regular on the interview circuit and publish a tell all book, yeah I'll think less of them.
i care more about the royals of kansas city than i do the royals of england. not that i care that much about the royals of kansas city.
George Brett's soiled underpants thank you.
I didn't see it, but I've read that their baby wasn't given a title as any other such infant would have been. Seems a pretty straightforward insult.
If I understand this situation, Archie wouldn't be a "prince" unless the queen chose to make him one since he's not really in the line for the throne. It's something that the queen did for William's children but not for Archie. My guess is that if you're not in the family (which, obviously, I'm not) their interactions and relationships it's difficult to say who's got the better of the arguments.
From the little I've seen of her, Megahan does seem to have a bit of a chip on her shoulder which might make a difficult family situation even more difficult. My guess is that it's even money that the queen justifiably hates Harry's wife.
If I'm understanding the title that Harry kept (which if he wants out of his family business you kind of have to ask why he kept it), Archie would be "Master" Archie during his minority and then, as an adult, would be given the courtesy title of "Lord"Archie.
https://www.debretts.com/expertise/essential-guide-to-the-peerage/courtesy-titles/
I think they meant some lesser title like Baron Rugrat, or something to that effect.
If I correctly understand what I read, Harry was a automatically a prince because his father was the Prince of Wales. William’s kids were princes/princess because the queen awarded them the title.
I think Archie didn’t get the title because the queen dislikes his mom and doesn’t seem all that fond of his dad either. But if I remember correctly, Harry renounced his prince title but kept his dukedom. So as the son of a duke, Archie (who seems like the sole victim and only remotely sympathetic character) only gets the title of lord—unless the queen is being generous.
If she wanted her son to have a title she probably should have done things differently, not the least of which would’ve been not doing this interview.
As I understood it the title conferred the right to a security detail and that was the big deal. Later, again as I understood it, they took away Harry’s security detail. I would agree that, if true, that was a really big deal. People like Harry are in constant danger of stalkers who could turn violent at any time.
I don’t follow these things very closely but the police are somewhat stingy about providing security. If Harry wanted to keep the security detail then he should’ve kept the title. And I don’t think it’s very easy or cost effective for the British police to provide round the clock security for them on Los Angeles.
I’m sympathetic to Archie because his parents might not have made the best choices for him and he might at some point regret being cut off from his father’s side of the family. But they made these choices with full awareness of the consequences. I simply don’t find them to be particularly sympathetic characters
That was Harry and Meghan's choice.
Technically he can use the title of Earl of Dumbarton but they chose not to use that title.
Which if you've ever been to Dumbarton is not a surprise.....
Didn't Harry renounce or something? That being the case, the ties are presumably (procedurally) severed no?
QAnon's x-ray vision detects that Oprah is wearing an ankle bracelet because of for some reason and that proves everything,
https://www.rawstory.com/oprah-meghan-markle/
Good grief - these are the folks who should be cobbling together an income working 2 or 3 jobs so they wouldn't have enough time on their hands to think these things up (as if there is any real thinking involved).
Everybody needs a hobby.
Especially these guys, who all have two things in common,
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/capitol-violence
they all have terrible taste, and nobody has ever really wanted to talk to them, except the FBI.
It's a cry for help!
It’s a gun to protect herself from QAnon idiots.
Or where some power or data cable plugs in because she's really a robot like Anderson Cooper.
I would have thought I could come here and miss any mention of Jim Lahey's prophesy.
https://youtu.be/56G4c9FEvZQ
But at least I can post this delicious bit of schadenfreude. Of course we'll be seeing them all again as if nothing had happened.
https://youtu.be/T_j35t3GCsk
"(c) let's be honest here, Meghan is not exactly a dark-skinned woman. There was never any real chance that Archie would be anything but pretty fair skinned."
Grading racism on a curve?!
Interviews with actors are always weird--I mean, these are people whose job is playing a fictional character convincingly.
I only know Meghan Markle from her one scene as FedEx Girl in Horrible Bosses.
Still want to know if Jason Sudeikis or Colin Farrell hit that.
Meh.......
Royal life stinks. You are constantly under a microscope
Markle with her Hollywood background should be used to this. She is also not a stupid person and knew full well what she was getting into.
UNLIKE Hollywood - Royals can't retreat they have quasi government functions that have to perform.
Markle wants to have her cake and eat it too
We live in a media driven society. You live by it, and you die by it.
As for Oprah? Could care less.
I think Harry ought to join the U.S. Air Force, or become a Naval aviator and retreat from the public's eye.
AS should Oprah
For the curious, there appears to be a transcript available. Sadly, the only one I've been able to find has been at The Sun: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14277841/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-full-transcript/
Presumably it would be best to have a second source.