On Sunday, CBS will broadcast a two-hour interview between the head of the ceremonial figure of the United States, Oprah Winfrey, and two non-executive members of the British royal family. Here are the things you don’t need to know, but you might want to find out anyway.
Where can I see Harry, Meghan and Oprah interviewed?
On television, Sunday, March 7, at 8pm Eastern on CBS. (Broadcast on ITV in Britain on Monday, March, 8 at 9pm)
How did Oprah get the scoop?
In the same way she overcame childhood poverty in rural Mississippi to become the world’s first Black female billionaire: time, effort and a surrender of natural charisma. In a video released on Friday, Oprah recalls that she asked Meghan to suggest an interview in February or March 2018. ”According to The Times of London, the two met in person that March when Oprah found herself in London, ”as one does,“ and Meghan was invited to meet her at Kensington Palace, ”as one.
In April, Oprah invited Meghan’s mother, Doria Ragland, to her home for lunch and yoga. About two months of experience was enough to invite Oprah to Meghan and Harry’s wedding.
Days after the couple announced their intention to “step back” as high kings, Oprah issued a statement denying rumors that she had advised them on a course of action. Meghan and Harry eventually moved so close to the Oprah estate in Montecito, Calif., That they could be named as neighbors, which is exactly how Oprah mentioned Meghan in an Instagram post in December supporting strong for a latte brand in which Meghan has recently been an investor.
Will it be any different from Harry ‘s interview with James Corden last week?
While drinking tea and riding around in an open bus, Harry described his family’s new life in California, accused the media of “ruining” his mental health, and he described how he and Meghan were in a “very difficult environment” when they decided to give up as working royals and leave Britain. It also appeared Archie’s first word (crocodile).
A little fun ahead of Sunday? Or partially picking Oprah to the post before she was severely banned?
Oprah’s interview takes place in something resembling the Garden of Eden, or another Montecito plant estate land. Another difference is that this interview will be conducted by someone whose film work has been nominated for Academy Awards.
Didn’t they leave the royal family to get their privacy?
Since announcing their decision to “step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family,” Meghan and Harry have struggled to fight the broad definition they meant. be private citizens. According to their official statements, their intention was to create new posts for themselves “within” the institution, while at the same time performing some official duties.
In his interview with James Corden, Harry emphasized, “He never walked away. It was a step backwards rather than a resignation. ”
Regarding the recent PR blitz: Time is a human guess. Last month, the couple formally confirmed to the queen that they would not return as working members of the royal family. This may always have been a plan for their first American trip, before the coronavirus disrupted their timeline.
Okay, so how is The Times of London involved?
Earlier this week, The Times of London published an article that said Meghan was against a bullying complaint when she was a working king. (Harry’s misbehavior was understandably so detailed.) The article also suggested that Meghan wore earrings that were a wedding gift from Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman shortly after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Needless to say, this report was found very poorly in Montecito.
What does ‘bullying’ mean?
Most of the Times of London’s values are outsourced to anonymous sources that report the effects of the couple’s accusatory behavior without identifying specific events.
“I had unpleasant experiences with her. I would definitely say it’s a shame, ”said one employee.
“Young women have been broken by their behavior,” said another.
The newspaper also said that Meghan was “denying bullying,” and that her lawyers were “saying that one person had gone after the results of misconduct” – a claim that the newspaper “able to prove.”
The British tabloids are largely unreliable, right?
While similar reports have surfaced in British tabloids over the years, The Times of London has a reputation as Britain ‘s best newspaper – more Philadelphia Inquirer than National Inquirer.
Are there any heroes in this story?
No; just victims and liars. The ratio and identity of each depends on which version of events you believe. One anonymous source shook Meghan and Harry’s displeasure with work inside the palace, criticizing their alleged failures which said: “The institution was just always defending Meghan. The men in gray suits have a lot of hate, because they did nothing to protect people. ”
What was Meghan and Harry’s response?
Fury. The couple’s lawyers accused the royal family and their staff of malice and fraud, telling The Times of London that the newspaper “was being used by Buckingham Palace to report paint a lured bland. ”
Through a speaker, Meghan and Harry dismissed the stories as “several-year-old allegations” packed together as part of a “smear campaign” that was intended to damage their reputations prior to their interview with Oprah. .
And Buckingham Palace?
Since the allegations were made, it has been Buckingham Palace statement release expresses concern and announces plans to look into the matter:
“Therefore, our HR team will look at the conditions outlined in the article. Staff involved at the time, including those who have left the Household, will be invited to take part to see if lessons can be learned. ”
Unsurprisingly, some backlash has been raised about the fact that the queen has a son who is facing questions from the FBI about his links to a convicted pedophile but the palace is beginning an investigation into Meghan’s behavior instead.
We need to talk about the earrings.
Meghan was presented with a pair of diamond earrings as an official wedding gift from the Saudi royal family.
According to a Times of London article, when she presented them to a formal dinner at a royal visit to Fiji in October 2018, the staff were told by the media that they were “on loan,” but did not receive them more information. The dinner took place three weeks after Mr Khashoggi was killed at a Saudi consulate in Istanbul. A source in the article said that palace staff advised Meghan not to wear the jewelery after she wore them a second time.
The Duchess’s lawyers claimed she was ignorant at dinner time that the crown prince was involved in the journalist’s murder.
A source in the Times of London article said that the palace staff recognized the jewelery after appearing in pictures from the dinner but “decided not to confront Meghan and Harry on it, for fear of having the answer. ”
But aren’t the crown jewels originally inquisitive?
Not all, but uncomfortable number pasts are dark and bloody. One example is the sad Koh-i-Noor diamond, which was taken from a 10-year-old boy king in India by the East British Company in 1849 after the colonists imprisoned his mother for acceptance. to Queen Victoria.
What do British people think of this “dropm marmalade”?
Earlier in the week, national eyes were raised around the time of the Sussexes issuing television calls back when Prince Philip was lying badly in hospital.
But then came the pre-emptive bomb bomb that was an article of the Times of London. And the déjà vu of watching the same thing very white, very middle-aged, very male a line of traditional British media to “protect the dignity of the royal family” by verbally assaulting a pregnant woman who has been subjected to racist smears over the years.
To go after Meghan, just this time about earrings and in the same breath as calling her a bully (again), she just feels a little hopeless, literally. It doesn’t put the “Plague Island” in a particularly good global light at a time when Britons could do with some advanced press.
As Curator Marina Hyde put it bluntly: “In fact, no matter how funny Meghan and Harry are ever – and often silly – it will never be a hundred times as rusty as a bear. those who put their mouths about it. “