On Sunday, CBS will broadcast a two-hour interview between the majestic ceremonial figure of the United States, Oprah Winfrey, and two non-working members of the British royal family. Here’s what you don’t need to know, but you might care to find out anyway.
Where can I watch the interview of Harry, Meghan and Oprah?
On television, Sunday, March 7, at 8 pm East on CBS. (It will be broadcast by ITV in Great Britain on Monday, March 8 at 9 pm)
How did Oprah get the scoop?
Just as she overcame child poverty in rural Mississippi to become the world’s first billionaire black woman: time, effort and an excess of natural charisma. In a video clip released on Friday, Oprah recalls that he called Meghan for the first time to propose an interview in “February or March 2018”. According to The Times of London, the two met in person that March, when Oprah “met in London” as one of them, “and was invited by Meghan to meet her at Kensington Palace”, as one is.
In April, Oprah invited Meghan’s mother, Doria Ragland, to lunch and yoga at her home. Approximately two months of knowledge were enough to give Oprah an invitation to Meghan and Harry’s wedding.
Days after the couple announced their intention to “back off” as senior royalty, Oprah released a statement denying rumors that he had advised them on a course of action. Meghan and Harry ended up moving so close to Oprah’s property in Montecito, California, that they could be called neighbors, which is actually how Oprah referred to Meghan in a December Instagram post enthusiastically endorsing a latte brand where Meghan had recently become an investor.
Will it be different from Harry’s interview with James Corden last week?
While drinking tea and riding on an open bus, Harry described his family’s new life in California, accused the press of “destroying” his mental health and described how he and Meghan faced a “really difficult environment” when they decided to stop working. as royalty and leave Britain. He also revealed Archie’s (crocodile) first word.
A little amuse-bouche before Sunday? Or pushing Oprah partially to the post before his big exclusive?
Oprah’s interview takes place in what appears to be the Garden of Eden, or the grounds of an exuberant estate in Montecito. Another difference is that this interview will be conducted by someone whose work in the cinema was nominated for an Oscar.
Didn’t they leave the royal family to enjoy their privacy?
Since announcing their decision to “retreat as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family,” Meghan and Harry have struggled to counter the widespread interpretation that they intended to become private citizens. According to their official statements, their intention was to create new roles for themselves “within” the institution, while continuing to perform some official functions.
In his interview with Mr. Corden, Harry emphasized: “It never left. It was to retreat instead of resign. “
As for the recent public relations blitz: the timing is unknown. Last month, the couple formally confirmed to the queen that they will not return as working members of the royal family. This may have always been the plan for its debut in the United States, before the coronavirus interrupted its timeline.
OK, how is The Times of London involved?
Earlier this week, The Times of London published an article that said Meghan faced a complaint of bullying when she was working royalty. (Harry’s bad behavior was implied in less detail.) The article also suggested that Meghan had worn earrings that were a wedding gift from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman shortly after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. It goes without saying that this report was very poorly received in Montecito.
What is meant by ‘bullying’?
Most quotes from The Times of London are attributed to anonymous sources who describe the effects of the couple’s alleged behavior without identifying specific incidents.
“I had unpleasant experiences with her. I would definitely say humbled, ”said a team member.
“Young women were devastated by their behavior,” said another.
The newspaper also reported that Meghan “denies bullying” and that her lawyers “declared that an individual left after finding misconduct” – a statement that the newspaper “was unable to corroborate”.
British tabloids are notoriously unreliable, right?
Although similar reports have occasionally appeared in British tabloids for years, The Times of London has a reputation as an official newspaper in Britain – more Philadelphia Inquirer than National Enquirer.
Is there a hero in this story?
No; just victims and villains. The proportion and identities of each depends on the version of the events you believe in. An anonymous source nodded to Meghan and Harry’s discontent with the inner workings of the palace, while criticizing the palace’s alleged flaws: “The institution only protected Meghan constantly. All the men in the gray suit she hates have a lot to answer for, because they did absolutely nothing to protect people. “
What was Meghan and Harry’s response?
Fury. The couple’s lawyers accused the royal family and its team of malice and deception, telling The Times of London that the newspaper was “being used by Buckingham Palace to spread a totally false narrative”.
Through a spokesman, Meghan and Harry condemned the stories as “multi-year distorted accusations”, bundled together as part of a “smear campaign” designed to damage their reputations before their interview with Oprah.
What about Buckingham Palace?
Since the allegations were published, Buckingham Palace has released a statement expressing concern and announcing plans to analyze the matter:
“Consequently, our HR team will analyze the circumstances described in the article. Team members currently involved, including those who have left the family, will be invited to participate to see if the lessons can be learned. “
As might be expected, some criticism has been raised about the fact that the queen has a son who is facing questions from the FBI about his associations with a convicted pedophile, but the palace is opening an investigation into Meghan’s conduct.
We should talk about earrings.
Meghan won a pair of diamond earrings as an official wedding gift from the Saudi royal family.
According to the Times of London article, when she used them for a formal dinner during an actual trip to Fiji in October 2018, the team told the media that they were “borrowed” but received no further information. Dinner came three weeks after Khashoggi was killed at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. A source in the article said the palace staff advised Meghan not to wear the jewelry after wearing it a second time.
The Duchess’s lawyers insisted that, at dinner time, she was unaware of speculation that the Crown Prince was involved in the murder of the journalist.
A source in the Times of London article said that palace officials recognized the jewelry after it appeared in the dinner photos, but “made the decision not to confront Meghan and Harry about it, for fear of what their reaction would be.”
But aren’t all crown jewels of questionable origins?
Not all, but an uncomfortable number they have dark and bloody pasts. One example is the dazzling Koh-i-Noor diamond, taken from a 10-year-old boy king in India by the British East India Company in 1849, after the settlers arrested his mother so that it could be given to Queen Victoria.
What do the British think about this “jelly dropper”?
Earlier in the week, national eyebrows rose over the moment when the Sussexes trotted to tell everything on television when Prince Philip was seriously ill in the hospital.
But then came the blatantly preventive bomb that was the London Times article. And the déjà vu of watching the same very white, very middle age, very masculine line-up of traditional British media types line up to “defend the honor of the royal family” by verbally attacking a pregnant woman who has repeatedly been subjected to relentless racist defamation over the years.
Going hysterically after Meghan, only this time because of earrings and at the same time calling her a bully (again), is a little desperate, frankly. Nor does it put “Plague Island” in a particularly good global light at a time when the British would need some positive media.
As the Guardian’s Marina Hyde said, “Unfortunately, no matter how ridiculous anything Meghan and Harry do – and they are often ridiculous – it will never, never be a hundredth as ridiculous as the behavior of those who foaming at the mouth about it.”