On Sunday, CBS will broadcast a two-hour interview between Oprah Winfrey, the royal ceremonial opera of the United States, and two non-executive members of the British royal family. Here’s what you don’t need to know, but might care to find out anyway.
Where can I watch Harry, Meghan and Oprah interview?
On television, Sunday, March 7, at 8 pm on Eastern CBS. (It will air on ITV in the UK at 9pm on Monday, 8 March)
How did Oprah get the scoop?
In the same way she defeated the poverty of childhood in rural Mississippi to become the world’s first black female billionaire: a byproduct of time, effort, and natural charisma. In a video clip released on Friday, Oprah recalls that she first called Meghan to propose an interview in “February or March 2018”. According to The times of londonThe two met the man in March, when Oprah “found herself in London”, as one does, “and was invited by Meghan to meet her at Kensington Palace,” as one is.
In April, Oprah invited Meghan’s mother, Doria Ragland, to her home for lunch and yoga. About two months was enough time for Oprah’s earnings. Invitation For Meghan and Harry’s wedding.
A few days later the couple announced to “step back” as the senior royals, Oprah released a statement She had advised him during the action, denying the rumors. Meghan and Harry eventually moved so close to Oprah’s property in Montekito, California, that they could be called neighbors, which is exactly what Oprah sent Meghan to A december instagram post Enthusiastically supports a Latte brand in which Meghan had recently become an investor.
Will it be different from Harry’s interview with James Corden last week?
while Drink tea and run around in an open top bus, Harry described his family’s new life in California, accusing the press of “destroying” his mental health, and how he and Meghan faced a “really difficult environment” when they worked. Decided to leave the royalty and leave Britain. He also revealed Archie’s first words (crocodiles).
Walking around a bit from Sunday? Or to post Oprah partially ahead of her big exclusive?
Oprah’s interview appears as the Garden of Eden, or the grounds of a lush Montecito estate. Another difference is that this interview will be conducted by someone whose film work has been nominated for an Academy Award.
Did they not leave the royal family to enjoy their privacy?
since announcement of In their decision to “step back” as “senior members of the Royal Family”, Meghan and Harry have struggled to counter a broader interpretation that meant they had become private citizens. According to their official statements , His intention was to create a “new role” for himself within the institution, while continuing to perform certain official duties.
In his interview with James Corden, Harry emphasized, “It was never running away. It was retreating rather than stepping down.”
As for the recent PR blitz: time is anyone’s guess. Last month, the couple formally confirmed to the queen that they would not return as working members of the royal family. It may be the case that before the timeline of the coronovirus was interrupted, it was always the plan for his American debut.
Okay, how is The Times of London involved?
Earlier this week, The Times of London Published an article Meghan said that while she was working, Meghan faced a bullying complaint. (Poor behavior by Harry was contained in little detail.) In the article, Meghan also suggested that the wedding was a gift to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman soon after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. It is needless to say that this report was received very poorly in Montekito.
What is meant by ‘bullying’?
Most citations to the Times of London are attributed to anonymous sources that describe the effects of the couple’s alleged behavior without identifying specific events.
“I had unpleasant experiences with him. I would definitely say humiliated, ”said a staff member.
“Young women were broken by their behavior,” said another.
The newspaper also reported that Meghan “denies bullying,” and her lawyers said that “one person gave up after the findings of misconduct” – a claim the newspaper “was not capable of corruption.”
British tabloids are notoriously unreliable, right?
although Similar report Occasionally popping up in British tabloids for years, The Times of London has a reputation as a newspaper of record in the UK – more Philadelphia Inquirer than National Inquirer.
Are there any heroes in this story?
No; Only victims and villains. The ratio and identity of each depends on which events you believe. An unnamed source pointed to Meghan and Harry’s dissatisfaction with the palace’s inner workings, while criticizing his alleged failures: “The institution continued to protect Meghan. All men in gray suits have much to answer for, as they did nothing to protect the people. “
What was Meghan and Harry’s reaction?
Fury. Counsel for the couple told The Times of London that the royal family and its staff had been accused of malfeasance and deception, with the newspaper stating that “a completely false statement is being used by Buckingham Palace.”
Through a spokesperson, Meghan and Harry pack the stories together as part of a “smear campaign” in the form of “perverted several-year accusations” aimed at damage to her reputation ahead of her interview with Oprah Had to deliver.
And Buckingham Palace?
Ever since the allegations were published, Buckingham Palace Issued a statement On expressing concern and announcing plans to look into the matter:
“Accordingly, our HR team will look into the circumstances mentioned in the article. Members of staff involved at the time, who have left the household, will be invited to see what lessons can be learned. “
Not unreasonably, some bench arises about the fact that the queen has a son who is questioning the FBI about her associations with a convicted pedophile, but Mahal is launching an investigation rather than Meghan’s conduct.
We should talk about earrings.
Meghan was given a pair of diamond drops as an official wedding present from the Saudi royal family.
According to a Times of London article, when he wore them to a formal dinner during a royal tour in Fiji in October 2018, the media was told by staff that he was “borrowed”, but gave him no further information Has gone. The dinner took place three weeks after Mr. Khashogi was killed at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. A source in the article said that the palace staff advised Meghan not to wear jewelry after wearing it a second time.
The Duchess’s lawyers insisted that at dinner time, she was unaware of the speculation 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 jewels from the dinner after appearing in photographs, but “decided not to confront Meghan and Harry over it, fearing that their What will be the response. “
But aren’t all crowns of questionable origin?
Not all but An uncomfortable number Dark and bloody past. Is an example Shiny Koh-e-Noor diamond, Was taken from a 10-year-old boy king in India by the British East India Company in 1849, when his mother was imprisoned by the colonists, so that it could be given to Queen Victoria.
What do british people think about it “Jelly Dropper”“?
At the beginning of the week, Sussex’s national eyebrows were raised from time-to-back television back-to-back when Prince Philip fell seriously ill at the hospital.
But then came a pre-emptive bomb from Brazil, a Times of London article. And same view dj vu very white, Very middle aged, Very male The lineup of traditional British media types is to verbally “defend the honor of the royal family” on a pregnant woman who has been subjected to persistent racist smears for years.
To go into hysteria after Meghan, only this time about the earrings and threatening her (again) in one breath, Just feel a little desperate, Clearly. Nor is this place “Plague island“Especially in a good global light at a time when Britain could do with some positive press.
As Marina Hyde of the Guardian Neatly planted: “I wish, no matter how ridiculous Meghan and Harry have ever been – and they are often ridiculous – it will never be, never even a hundredth as ridiculous as the behavior of the froths about it.”