UK royals in TV head-to-head with Prince Harry and Meghan

This should be interesting.

I think the Queen is over playing her hand.

It will be quite embarrassing if Harry and Meghan beat out the BRF in the ratings.

OP: I started a similar thread hours ago, but I won't be obnoxious and and refer you to it. But definitely a worthy topic. Let's hear it for the queen.

It's a showdown, bitches!!!

The Queen vs. The Duchess.

Can't wait!

You could be right that the Queen might be overplaying her hand, R1. I can easily imagine the familiar old lady talking about the Commonwealth being beaten many times over in the viewership by Harry and Meghan's latest antics. That being said, I hope that the royals aren't consciously trying to play Meghan's game, because they will lose it every time. Meghan is an absolute narcissist who will stoop to any depth, so the House of Windsor would do well to remember the adage about fighting a pig in mud.

Or it could be this was already planned and M&O are the ones with the ulterior motive.

Who are M&O?

Not watching them. All cunts. Useless cunts

The air date and time of Her Majesty and the other senior royals promoting Commonwealth Day in the UK will be on the afternoon of 7 March. Oprah's interview with the Harkles will air the following day (8 March) in the U.K.

Oprah's interview with the Harkles will air in the U.S. on Sunday evening, the 7th of March. And the queen and other senior royals won't appear on U.S. television (other than maybe on a newscast), so the two television appearance won't be going head-to-head opposite each other.

[quote] the two television appearance(s) won't be going head-to-head opposite each other.

Lucky for the BRF.

They would have gotten smashed in the ratings.

I would not expect anything hard-hitting from Oprah. She tried shock tactics years ago with the Michael Jackson exposé, and she was the one who ended up having a pretty bad fallout from that. This image will be the "authentic self" Oprah from years gone by.

The content matters, not the ratings

So we have the Queen and the Royal Family talking about something they deeply care about, the Commonwealth, and Meghan talking about the only thing she cares about: herself.

I know which one I'd prefer to watch.

[quote] So we have the Queen and the Royal Family talking about something they deeply care about, the Commonwealth, and Meghan talking about the only thing she cares about: herself.

Has anyone asked me how I'M doing, R11?

You selfish bastard.

The Queen and the rest will be spouting their regular drivel about the importance of the Commonwealth which has likely been planned for months as they generally are. And the other two eejits can spout their drivel on the other side of the Atlantic. The day will pass the tabloids will have their fun about 5% of the population will be up in arms one way or another and the rest will probably not really spend more than a few seconds even thinking about it.

Excuse the lack of comma. ^

"Eejits": are you Irish, R14?

If he were Irish, he would have said "Ye fookin eejits!"

No one from the BRF has picked up the phone once to ask if Markle is okay. She's gonna reign holy terror when she talks with Oprah.

The intended audience for Oprah's interview is American.

No American gives a shit about the Queen's Commonwealth speech. No US station is going to play the speech.

I won't be watching the Commonwealth program, since I'm American. I'll probably watch parts of it on Youtube, though, since I enjoy The Queen's speeches. I can barely stand to watch a minute of the Sussexes without recoiling in horror and second-hand embarrassment. The Queen has been one of the few constant figures in my life, especially since my older relatives are all dead. I can respect and admire her without being a Monarchist. I found myself comforted by her brief words regarding the COVID Crisis.

Give me a fucking break. I love The Queen, but the only speeches of hers I've ever watched are her annual Christmas speeches, and her Diana rememberance...maybe her speech following the London terrorist attack in 2005.

The average person doesn't give a fuck about the Commonwealth (certainly no American). The Oprah interview will be huge, regardless of how one feels about the Sussexes.

Oooh catfight! Delish.

Harry and Meghan are young, charismatic and sexy. The Queen can’t fight that.

I can't imagine Meghan and Harry knew the timing of this TV appearance, and I doubt Oprah's production company even looked into it, because as others have said, the intended audience is American. They aren't going head-to-head and aren't even airing that close to each other; this feels like a strained attempt to generate controversy.

^^exactly. Harkles PR are known fior straining, though, because there's no there there

Whatever. In their earnest attempts to gain sympathy and understanding, you just know the Sussexes will dig themselves in ever deeper. They can't do right for doing wrong at this point.

I should imagine that Oprah's offering is to help heal the huge tear that has happened to H&M's reputation. A tear I attribute more to haters, rumor mongers & envious crazies than to H&M themselves. I can not imagine H&M would do some sort of "we don't need the Royal Family for anything, we can do whatever we want, so there" TV expose. I don't think either of them are careless enough to burn that particular bridge.

Commonwealth Day is always the same day every year. Harry and Megs knew well ahead of time what day that would be. The Queen's program has been in the works for months, obviously she was going to do something.

The Oprah program is not being broadcast in the UK. The DM says that ITV is in the lead bidding for it but it hasn't been sewn up yet. There is no broadcast date for the UK yet. Obviously, they will know what Harry and Megs said and many will watch online.

The Oprah show will be flashier but the Queen and the royals will win in the end. Brenda knows her business, as she demonstrated last Friday.

It looks as though the old Duke's about to shuffle off this mortal coil. The sympathy for the Queen will be overwhelming.

There are st least 5 existing threads on which this bloody topic is being discussed. What the fuck is wrong with you lot?! Can't count? Can't read?!

And the Queen isn't playing a hand. The Commonwealth programme was planned weeks ago. The RF did6know about the Oprah interview and weren't supposed to know. It was another nasty trick the two kind, compassionate, living, noble Sussexes planned to play on HM.

Unfortunately, ITV got wind of the interview and leaked it. The Queen's response wasn't the Commonwealth programme, which was already planned and s scheduled, but the announcement of the removal of all the couple's remaining royal connections.

Which, of course, the two nasty shites also knew about, but somehow forgot to mention to Oprah during filming, making refilming necessary.

The ratings will be what the ratings will be. But as for "overplaying her hand", please.

One day Meghan will be over, because that's how celebrity works. The Queen will die part of history and the monarchy will still be there.

Those are the only ratings that count in the long term.

In my semi-defense, r29, I didn't go looking for all the Harry and Meghan threads and pick one. This was the first (and so far only) one I've seen about this. It was just there in the "recent" threads list.

R23 Exactly how is 40 "young"?

And in Britain, the Sussex's charisma has for some reason fallen curiously flat.

Balding snaggle-toothed lecturing Harry has the charisma of a garden slug these days.

His only charisma is the one Meghan married him for: Prince in front of his name and Windsor after it.

She couldn't get more than one decent acting job in her entire career. That's how sexy and charismatic she was.

She'll be 40 this August.

The whole point about the monarchy is that it isn't about one person or politics or charisma or youth. It survived and recovered without Diana who had 100 times Meghan's looks and charisma and who was younger when she died than Meghan is now.

That's what Meghan never got. She's unable to get that.

Because if it isn't all about Meghan it's not worth the effort.

Ratings are temporary measures of temporary celebrity.

The monarchy isn't. Hence, Meghan's total unsuitability for royal life.

R30 all you have to do is look down the list after searching for Meghan. There are at least two with Oprah and Interview in the thread title.

R32, I've been a DLer for more than 20 years. I know how to do a search if I'm looking for something. I wasn't, most people aren't. We take the threads as we find them.

I love that the old broad is wading into the mix! Good for her! Of course, Meghan and Harry will win the ratings. But don't the RF gives a damn about that. It's a shot across the bow: Don't fuck with me, fellas!

Choosing March 7 is bitchy, petty, and glorious!

You all should kill each other in a battle Royale! (Tee hee).

What r31 said.

I'll watch the Oprah interview. I won't watch the Commonwealth program and I adore Q E II.

That alone, however, is the most damning thing about the Sussexes.

They've nailed their flag to the mast as "celebrities" and I'm unabashedly shallow enough to want to see and experience the brief sugar high of the momentary spectacle.

Q E II, however, endures. And when she dies, and assuming I outlive her, through my TV, I'll be front and center, watching every single moment of her funeral.

It's not so much a face-off as the most radiant contrast in destinies imaginable. The Commonwealth programme will feature The Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William: the line of succession in full unarguable majesty. History past present and future. Deep continuity.

Harry and Meghan will - having rejected any role in the above - engage in a chat show with a famous rich American media star, to enhance their brand as misunderstood Royal renegades. Old World contrasted with New World most vividly.

It's possible that in talking largely about Themselves, rather than the vast body of Other People which is The Queen's beloved Commonwealth, Harry and Meghan will attract a strong amount of negative criticism. If their advisers thought they were being clever with this timing, it could well backfire.

Yet again, I must point out that the Commonwealth programme was planned for that date long ago. You think the BBC changes dates on a whim?

The way the Queen waded was through the announcement about removal of the royal patronages and military appointments and the Commonwealth positions.

The Sussexes knew that was coming down the pike, and hoped to get ahead of it with the Oprah programme air before it was made public. Everyone knows Commonwealth Day is the second Monday in March, that was no secret. That's why the Sussexes wanted the interview to air the day before. But it's also why the BRF's programme was scheduled for the day before, well in advance of Harry's and Meghan's nasty little attempt to blindside the Queen again.

They got caught this time. They also apparently lied to Oprah, talking about their "work" back in Britain with their royal patronages and then acting shocked and hurt when, after the interview, the truth was made known. They've know all year that the likelihood of them retaining those without returning as full-time working royals was slim to none. They just kept leaking stories about how eager they were to "work" in Britain representing "the Queen's values" when they knew all the time the stories were empty air.

So they lied to the Queen, lied to the public, and lied to Oprah. This time, they got caught, and the only way the Queen "waded in" was to drop the royal connections bomb before they could get in front of the story with their secret interview.

The Queen doesn't give a damn about ratings. In point of fact, the monarchy only matters in Britain. And in Britain, in the ratings game, William, the Queen, and Kate occupy the top three positions of favour with the UK public.

Omid Scobie, Meghan's personal lapdog, has been telling the world for months that Harry and Meghan were planning to return to Britain to work with their royal patronages, and, of course, would be attending stuff like the Trooping the Colour and Remembrance Day.

The only way Meghan Markle gets back on the balcony of Buck House after this last atrocious trick she tried to play on the Queen is if there's a rope from which Meghan is dangling whilst Princess Anne stands over it with a sharp knife.

Yeah, the ratings on 7 March will likely in America go to the Harkles.

Everything else down the years goes to the monarchy, and especially to William and Kate.

Oh noes, "head to head" same day, hours apart, on different continents, on channels which broadcast on both network TV and internet? Wow, this could have been a real showdown LAST CENTURY.

In reality the vast majority of people in both the UK and US will watch neither, a bunch will watch one, a sliver will watch both, and most who catch any of it will only watch a few snippets of each.

How's this for "ratings"? 49% of the UK public think Harry should be removed from the line of succession (he won't be, I assure you, unless he surrenders his place volunatarily), with the Don't Know's and Nays splitting the other half nearly evenly.

So much for sexy young charisma.

I enjoyed reading your post, r38.

Still, I hope you're not letting Prince Harry off the hook. I see him as having as much, if not more, blame than Markle.

Or this for ratings, the survey taken by YouGov in October 2020, just four months ago, and that's BEFORE the nasty little interview and insult response.

The BRF know which ratings matter. And it isn't one evening with Oprah.

R39 - I suspect you're right on that score. Americans care far less about Meghan and Harry than they care to admit, which is why one television executive candidly said this interview was their one chance to prove to entities like Netflix that they've got real drawing power. The American audience was really always their target, it's where the money is. The Sussexes know they are toast in Britain.

Americans also have a great deal else on their minds these days, and that goes for Britons, as well. It remains to be seen how much celebrity two whingeing, complaining, exhaustingly self-absorbed, lecturing, preening duo can muster beyond the latest fracas with the royal family. I've long suspected that they deliberately generate those conflicts because without them, the reminders of their royalty will fade increasingly. They can't any longer utilise working with the family to remind the world of their royalty, so they have to use conflict with the BRF to do so.

I also suspect that the Queen, particularly, is well aware of this and why she has insisted that for the most part, the BRF not Feed the Beast with responses to every nasty leak by the Sussexes.

It is the Sussexes who want to keep this battle going, it's the source of their celebrity. No one cares what they think about climate change, motherhood, philanthropy, etc. The real test will be how much interest they generate AFTER it becomes clear that they no longer have any public connection to things Royal. And you'll be able to gauge that if the Sussexes, despite knowing it's all over for them in Britain and with the BRF, keep flogging the dead horse because when they stop, no one pays attention to them.

Yeah, I for one think this interview will be kind of "it" for Harry and Meghan as far as the royal connection, except for future funerals. They really need to move on.

Harry, in all likelihood, will see 4 monarchs in his lifetime. Grandson, Son, Brother and Uncle to one.

They will never strip him of his HRH status because of that. He will be a constant familial thorn in the side of each of them. Just like the Duke of Windsor, Harry will court popular support, regardless of his wife, for many years to come. Simply, because he will always be Diana's son.

Another sex pest relative of the Queen's - from the maternal line, proving that it's not just the Windsor genes that are defective.

All eyes are on Megan. That woman is fascinating for whatever reason. Out with the old, in with the new.

No, r46, the royals are above reproach! It's just the ones that refuse to bow before them like Harry and Meghan that are the problem! The royal bloodline means they can never be sex pests or pedophiles, as they own all the people they molest! You cannot scold one for soiling one's own undergarments!

Close enough, R17. Someone from Dublin might say "Yez fookin' eejits" and a person from outside Dublin would say "Ye fuckin' eejits".

[quote]Ratings are temporary measures of temporary celebrity.

Basically, the only numbers that matter are regnal numbers, like William V and George VII*.

*Yes, I know that you can choose another name as your regnal name, but that's not going to happen in the PR age. Also, I know that it's far from a foregone conclusion that the monarchy will still be around when George's time comes - on the contrary.

[quote] It was another nasty trick the two kind, compassionate, living, noble Sussexes planned to play on HM.

ELDER ABUSE!!!!

Haha Meghan is Harry's dream come true!

I don't think that he could have chosen a better spouse to STICK IT to his family.

I'm sure he's loving all the drama and controversy. He hates his family.

LOL, R1... you think this about ratings?

The Queen doesn't do ratings. That's Megantoinette's value system.

This is about the contrast between what the Royal Family talks about and what the Thenardiers talk about.

[quote] This is about the contrast between what the Royal Family talks about and what the Thenardiers talk about.

In the UK.

But in the US, it's about ratings.

Could you perhaps tell me how a ratings war is conducted when one side isn't shown?

The UK media is currently in a bidding war for the Oprah interview. I have said previously the UK tabloids and the BRFs behaviour would fuel the interest. It's basic psychology. They engaged a neutral or indifferent audience. That audience now will watch the interview. The queen has memes being made of her calling her Petty Betty. The rescheduling is being seen as petty. The BRF played this wrong.

Unless Meghan spills some really salacious gossip, Americans aren’t going to care that much.

R57 - That's the sticking point around which all the discussion spins. The audience wants salacious gossip. Salacious gossip is risky and could seriously backfire on the Harkles, who are (publicly, anyway) really interested in pushing themselves forward as being "relevant" in their own right.

If they cross certain lines, there won't be, any longer, and pretence of welcoming the pair as private members of the family; Charles will cut Harry and his children out of his Will (and do not think for a moment that however much money the Harkles make, they won't resent that); and they won't be able to cross the street in Britain without someone booing or throwing something.

It's my belief that the last remaining shreds of Harry's lines to his family are hanging in the balance.

For all their studied calculations, Harry and Meghan seem curiously at the mercy of their demons, unable to figure out when to stop. If they don't stop, the Queen, who still appears to be in good health, in control, and calling the shots for the family to abide by, may just realise that it's time to pull up the drawbridge and let Harry go.

It's fine for Harry and Meghan, but it's awful I think for their two children, who could have had a loving grandfather (Charles is very good with small children), a loving Uncle and Aunt, cousins to play with . . .

On a strictly familial level, it's a tragedy. And it really didn't have to be this way.

They didn't play anything. They don't play. The BBC would have scheduled this previously.

The Commonwealth Day service, usually attended by about 2,000 people, is one of the highlights of the Queen’s diary. It was due to be held on Monday 8 March, as it has been every year since 1972.

The decision to replace it with a programme on 7 March was said to have been made at the start of February, before the Harry and Meghan interview with Oprah was announced. A Westminster Abbey spokesperson said: “The decision was taken jointly by the abbey, the BBC and the royal household about three weeks ago.”

Worth pointing out Bonnie and Clod were trying to keep the Oprah thing a secret until it leaked accidentally. There is no competition here.

This is a Commonwealth Day special that was scheduled quite a while ago.

Meghan and Harry purposefully chose the Commonwealth Day to air their own special to emphasize how vital they are to that patronage. And now it's gone. If egg is on anyone's face it's on that of the Harkles.

It would have to be a very special conspiracy to induce Wesmtinster Abbey and the BBC to collude with the Royal Household get spoil Meghan's big self-immolation. Still, it is a marvellous coincidence... The Royal Family acting with dignity in role and... fill in the blank. I've run out of ways to describe that low end wannabe.

If Phillip dies between now and 3/7 will Oprah have to reschedule the supposed tell all? Would look really bad to have Meghan bashing the royal family while they’re grieving.

The Commonwealth countries - countries where their people were raped and murdered and pilfered by the British. As soon as the Queen dies, Australia will leave the commonwealth and all the rest will follow.

Harry and Meghan may need to re-do their Oprah interview after being stripped of royal roles

Buckingham Palace announced on Friday that both Meghan and Harry have officially quit the Royal Family with the Duke, 36, losing his military titles. The pair were interviewed by Oprah last week – shortly before being stripped of their royal roles. The interview has now been “significantly” edited, the Mirror reported.

A source said: “When the Duke and Duchess spoke, it was never envisaged they would have their patronages taken away. “They didn’t see it coming and spoke as they still had roles to play. “Now, however, other than their titles, they are to have no role in royal life – a point producers know was not discussed when Winfrey spoke to them. “Neither the Sussexes nor the TV crew saw the fallout of their interview leading to this. Harry and Meghan thought they would retain their roles.

“But things have significantly changed for them since they eagerly sat for Winfrey and poured their hearts out.”

They may want to at least film an "update" with the Oprah. Hoo boy.

Harry and Meghan’s Oprah interview to be ‘re-edited’ following royal exiit

Harry and Meghan's Oprah interview to be re-edited as rift widens with Royal Family

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's interview with Oprah Winfrey will be re-edited following their explosive rift with the Royal Family. Given the change of events between last week’s filming and the stripping of their patronages, the televised chat will be re-edited. A source told the Mirror: “When the Duke and Duchess spoke, it was never envisaged they would have their patronages taken away. “They didn’t see it coming and spoke as they still had roles to play. “Now, however, other than their titles, they are to have no role in royal life - a point producers know was not discussed when Winfrey spoke to them.

I fully expect this interview to leak...

No way, r69. it will still be in the edit room until 20 minutes before airing.

R64 You should do better research. The modern Commonwealth is completely voluntary, and several nations that left asked to be readmitted. It also wasn't all rapinf and pilfering and Australia was settled by Britons and is part of the Anglosphere. If, in its maturity, Australia decides to opt for republican government, I really doubt it would be because of raping and pilfering.

This isn't the Commonwealth of pre-WWII. It really isn't as if you lot are sending tribute of 100 virgins each year for Charles's enjoyment.

The Commonwealth nations are all better off for being under the British. I mean have you SEEN the former Spanish nations? Oy vey!

Truly, r72. the worst of the worst, though, are the former Belgian colonies. The Congo was left a festering mess by the Belgians and has never really recovered.

The Belgians were monstrous.

Nope, plenty of countries are in the process of ditching the Commonwealth and the white woman leading the commonwealth.

Sorry r75 most of the Commonwealth countries are happy to stay. It's advantageous for them. They get tons of benefits.

Barbados has been leaving rhe Commonwealth for what, 20 years? I think they changed their minds again. Oh well, don't tell earnest R75.

They can’t see that future accounts will, I believe, record the Queen as having acted poorly when responding to a grandson who adores her. Mean spirited over magnanimous won the day.

I think I read that there is a big sporting event and one of the awards shows (Critics Choice, perhaps) that will air on the same night and at the same time as the OW interview.

Predictions of huge ratings? I wonder.

I admit to following Sparkle and Dim's antics, but how many other Americans care enough to watch? And 90 minutes?? There are her rabid fans, or course, but how many people is that?

And I won't watch because after watching long ago some of the engagement interview, I turned it off because I didn't like how she was so rudely interrupting Harry. And I found the sound of her voice to be grating and irritating much in the same way I feel about the voice of the recently gone and not lamented you know who politician.

Any comments of note will appear in print any way.

r78, read the comments below that article. There's only one commenter out of a few hundred who agrees with the man from the BBC who wrote this simpering article.

[quote]If Phillip dies between now and 3/7 will Oprah have to reschedule the supposed tell all? Would look really bad to have Meghan bashing the royal family while they’re grieving.

Honey, that's called ratings and gravy!

What could the BRF possibly say that’s interesting?

[quote]R58 it's awful I think for their two children, who could have had a loving grandfather (Charles is very good with small children), a loving Uncle and Aunt, cousins to play with

Please. Seriously, how often would they have all seen each other?

It’s not like Kate and Wills went out of their way to socialize when Meghan and Harry were newlyweds.

It's not about them being interesting, R82. It's about them being dutiful. It's about public service and working together for global goals over many years. It's actually doing what Harry and Smugs only pretend to do.

I predict this will be a triumph for the Windsors and a ratings boom/personal failure for the Harkles.

England doesn't want its royals on Oprah, it wants them in Westminster Abbey, doing good works.

Charles would have been great with the kids, r83. Maybe Meghan and Harry burned most of their other Windsor (and other) family bridges, but Charles and the Queen seem consistently willing to reach out to them with good will.

You can trace Harry's weiner in OP's pic, hanging right. He's either wearing boxers, boxer briefs or going commando.

Charles great with kids? He doesn't even let his wife see her grandchildren at his house, which is said to be kept like a museum. She has to see them at her own place.

The place to be for royal grandchildren is the Middletons'. If Harry had married someone that Kate and Pippa liked, I bet his family would have been warmly welcomed, giving his kids a childhood of wonderful summers and Christmases.

[quote] If Harry had married someone that Kate and Pippa liked, I bet his family would have been warmly welcomed

Give me a fucking break!

Who in the hell are "Kate and Pippa" that they have to give their so-called approval to Harry's choice of a wife.

FUCK KATE AND PIPPA, those two fucking MIDDLING CUNTS!

They're nothing. They're nobody. Their mother is a fucking flight attendant for fucks' sake!!!

Lili222 Dlisted. Go to the Latest Sussex article. Posted yesterday. Not the Prince Phillip one posted today. Scroll through and read Lili222 comments. It is one of three hundred Brf trolls identified definitively within the last week. Dlisted is so infested with the Brf trolls that other sites that affiliate with it are openly in the comments section calling it racist. This is occurring on multiple sites. The BRF are pissing off a lot of people with the troll infestation. A lot.

No one said the Middleton siblings have to give their approval to Harry's choice of wife, but if they disliked her, they would hardly invite her to their family home or include her in their celebrations, which are good enough for the future king and his children.

R88 is a typical sugar - crying about racism and classism but ignorantly displaying their own when it comes to Kate Middleton.

Also, don't let the flight attendant fool you - it's the same myth they tried to pull when they called Diana Spencer a 'commoner'. Carol Middleton is a Goldsmith and her husband also comes from old money, which it is suspected they launder through their party supplies business. Regardless, the Middletons are loaded, and can afford William & Co the luxury and private getaways they need to escape the limelight.

When Harry Met Meghan, observers pointed out that without any real personal fortune (for their standard of living, at least) they would have to rely on the kindness of strangers - and look at them now, hosted by shady Russian oligarchs and god knows who else.

Young, sexy and charismatic? Harry and Meghan? The fug duo? Oh, my lord! Anyone expecting big ratings better go back and check all their previous big "TV specials" in the U.S. All were very low rated and beaten by reruns.

At the risk of defending the execrable Sussexes... they don’t choose the time slot. They’re not that powerful. Perhaps Oprah does. I believe (but am happy to be corrected if inaccurate) that network executives decide when a program will air, at least in the US.

R91 - Diana was a commoner. The fact is, there's royal, and there's commoners. Anyone without an HRH is a "commoner" as the term is used in Britain. Aristocrats, which is what Diana was, are commoners. The Duke of Westminster, the richest man in Britain, is a commoner. He's "Your Grace". not 'Your Royal Highness". Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, also the daughter of an earl, like Diana, was a commoner.

Aristocrats - are - commoners. Only HRH and above makes one royal. Hence, the battles over Harry's title and "style" of HRH.

And, yes, the Meghanstans are eaten up with envy and hatred of Survivor Kate, who succeeded where Meghan failed. Racism is all they have to fall back on. They forget that Kate also showed backbone, loyalty, and kept her mouth shut when the Queen asked her to.

They think Meghan should have been crowned Queen simply by virtue of having a black Mum - who basically ignored the kid from the time she was 8 years old or so whilst the now-defamed father brought her up, paid for her expensive private middle schools and university, spoilt her, and then got kicked to the kerb by that great humanitarian filled with the desire to promote "kindness".

You couldn't make it up.

In the great scheme of things and over the longer-term, I doubt this programme will have much impact beyond another This Year's Meghan Headache for the BRF. Eventually, that kind of thing will die a natural death because there really is only so long Meghan can keep that up without making herself seem redundant, obsessed, and tiring (all of which may really be the case).

But I do agree that it will mark a crossroads of sorts for the Harkles, especially Meghan. You have to be extremely careful what you put out on so public and eternal a record. If Meghan uses this opportunity the way she used "Finding Freedom", as an endless snide rant against the Windsors, that's going to become her public identity. If she and Harry really want to move on and establish themselves as Something Else Besides Pissed Off At The Royal Family, this is their opportunity to do so.

So in a sense I agree that it's a make or break chance for them to show they're something besides fodder for the Mail's, SUN's, Mirror's, etc., headlines.

If Meghan has the brains of an ant, she'll use the interview to fool and foil the tabloids with an anodyne interview in which she establishes herself as something besides Angry and Ill Done By by speaking intelligently on a range of matters that her bloody foundation is supposed to be addressing.

If she doesn't, and she goes for the royal jugular, all Meghan will do is nail her Angry Royal Has-Been flag to the mast. It's not really a good look. It will likely backfire just the way the Panorama interview backfired on Diana.

Were I her PR consultants, that would be my advice: be generous, warm, forward-looking, and give some semblance of being grateful for your good fortune, your wealth, your privilege, and your opportunities.

Diana was a 'commoner' before and after her marriage to Charles. When she divorced, her HRH title was removed. Diana was said to be devastated at this demotion, possibly at the insistence of Charles rather than The Queen. Doubtless this won't ever be forgotten by William or Harry. If the same happens to Harry, he'll have a powerful reference point.

They cannot and will not remove Harry's royal status as an HRH. He is the son of the heir apparent to the throne.

Diana was the divorced wife of the Prince of Wales. Her royal title was a consequence of her marriage. Once the marriage was over, her royal status was done. Simple.

R93 - I'm not sure why March 7 was chosen. I doubt very much it has anything to do with Commonwealth Day. I don't know what time it's going to air, but I suspect it's going into 60 Minutes time slot (~50 year old news program) as a "special" up against the NBA All-Star game and the Critic's Choice awards. The Voice also airs at this time. It doesn't look like it's going to be a ratings killer.

Isn't this also something of a comeback interview for Oprah? When/who was her last big interview?

R98 - It has everything to do with Commonwealth Day. Harry and Meghan know that Commonwealth Day is the second Monday in March, and they also knew they were going to lose their Commonwealth position when they set up the interview and scheduled it. Their original intention was to talk about their "work" for the Commonwealth and how they looked forward to continuing it, until the Queen did an end run around them after ITV leaked news of the upcoming interview. This not only frustrated their intention to use the interview to bolster their, "Oh Poor Us We So Were Looking Forward to Continuing to Uphold Her Majesty With Commonwealth Work!" victim card as they assumed the Queen's announcement would follow the interview, but also exposed the fact that they lied to Oprah about their expectations of retaining those positions.

They knew all along that the Queen wasn't going to play ball on that score. They and their PR lapdog, Omid Scobie, just kept that We're Keeping Our Military And Royal Patronages and Honours and We'll Be Back On the Balcony of Buck House for the Tropping the Colour! balloon afloat as long as possible, knowing full well it was NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

Their last public appearance as part of the royal family was last year at that very same Commonwealth Day service in Westminster Abbey, when the entire family essentially ignored them and humiliated them. Even Charles barely nodded at them, and Kate, William, and Sophie totally froze Meghan out. It was the final coup de grace.

You may absolutely be sure that 7 March was chosen specifically for Meghan to try to pay back the BRF for that last humiliation. Unfortunately, their little game was exposed, and the Queen let the cat out of the bag before the Harkles could use the interview to beef up their Poor 'ittle Us! porftolio.

It was no accident, it was entirely intentional, and it had everything to do with Commonwealth Day.

BP say that date was chosen three months ago, as they were planning on having to cancel everything the next day due to C-19. They had hope not, but had a backup plan anyway. It was M&H who had a choice for the airdate of their interview, the Queen's was already set. Idk what the truth is.

I just read two articles on the Daily Mail, both of which had associates of Diana spouting off about what she'd think today. The first one said Diana would have been horrified by Harry and Meghan's antics, because she wanted her boys to be princes of a "modern monarchy." People insist Diana was a staunch royalist but I'm not sure about that. Remember when she explicitly stated Charles was unfit for the throne? That was some serious fuckery.

The second associate claimed Diana would have been thrilled about Meghan and Harry's move to California, since she herself had been looking at getting a place in Malibu. Supposedly she wanted to give the boys the "freedom" of living in Malibu. Yeah, right. Privileged kids like them would have gotten up to all kinds of no good in that environment. If that's true, it shows how clueless she could be at times.

[quote] and then got kicked to the kerb

Oh, dear!

You're an idiot AND a bad speller.

Sweetie, kerb is a British spelling of curb. Now you tell that poster you're sorry, right now!

[quote] The second associate claimed Diana would have been thrilled about Meghan and Harry's move to California, since she herself had been looking at getting a place in Malibu. Supposedly she wanted to give the boys the "freedom" of living in Malibu.

I didn't know that. How interesting.

Harry would have been pretty young at the time (maybe 10-12 years old?) but I'll bet it was imprinted in his memory.

It could have a lot to do with who he married, and where he ended up.

Kids never forget things like that, especially when they side with their mother in a divorce. He seems to have been very attached to Diana.

And who really knows the things she put in his head when he was a child?

People tend to discount his relationship with his mother, now that he's an adult.

Mommy's boy.

R104 I remember hearing it back then, but who knows if it's true. Diana seemed all over the place in those days, trying to find her footing. It was sad.

Diana and Harry even acted alike.

But William was always the serious one.

Diana and William are so alike here. The posture especially.

R103 I was about to tell him. Thanks.

I think Diana did damage his relationship with TRF, whether intentional or not.

I always loved this photo.

I feel sad about the rift between William and Harry.

We can only speculate about Diana's reaction, of course, but I think it's fair to assume she would have been competitive with any women the boys married. I'm guessing Kate would have sucked it up and cleverly deferred to her, guided by wiley Carole. Not sure Meghan could have managed that.

This photo clearly illustrates why Harry will always be the "bad guy."

Harry EXTERNALIZES everything, while William INTERNALIZES everything.

Which means that if William is happy, sad, angry, or whatever... no one will really know. He keeps it all inside.

However, with Harry you'll always know what he's thinking because he'll say it and you'll see it written all over his face.

As an American, when we are having problems I always advise everyone to read what they are saying overseas because then they will get a much better idea of what is really going on.

As an American, from this view you are coming across as so petty. I'm sick of hearing about how much you hate Markle. I know some think it is because she is black but it isn't. It's because she is American and any other American would have gone thru the same thing. All you people had to do was be nice to her. That's all. you didn't have to bow to her or serve her, just be nice. ...You weren't, so they left. Did you think they were going to stay there and just take it day after day, month after month, year after year? So what that she said no one has asked about her. After what you guys put her thru I am sure she felt so alone and detached, so what the the hell did you expect her to say? You convinced yourselves she was horrible before you even gave her a chance.

I think a lot of you are not only mad that she is an American, but that you won't get to watch Harry fucking anyone else on tv again.

He didn't abdicate the throne for her so give them both a fucking break.

"All you people had to do was be nice to her...,"

The £30M pound white wedding, £1M clothes budget. engagements with the Queen and then abroad! You Brit whores, if only you were nice to poor weak Sparklez.

Did it come out of YOUR pocket, you stupid fuck R115?

Who is the biggest cunt around? The one that makes us all frown? It's Smuggsy! R116

The Brf trolls have scripted trolling. There is a simple method to determine this. The top 10 or so sites that have sussexes posts have their comments analysed. Certain words and phrases keep appearing. In the same order and within a certain time frame. Yesterday and todays script allegedly involves: The race card, Removal from line of succession and Don't watch the interview watch it the next day on youtube. Now go to the major sites that have a Sussex post. Include UK tabloid article comments and check.

I'd actually admire H&M if they were capable of thinking more than 2 steps ahead.

This interview is going to be a disaster for the Sussexes and the BRF. In trying to gain sympathy, they will play the victim card for all it's worth, which they can only do by painting the BRF as villains. When the dust settles, the Ss will have burnt every bridge, and the prestige of the BRF will have taken a pounding.

There are no winners here, only losers.

R114 Pure codswallop. No one gave f.a. that she was American, and she was heartily welcomed by the British and its monarchy.

And if you're so bloody sick of hearing about it, what the fuck are you doing HERE? No one forces you to read this.

"Petty"? Your objection to all this on one of the pettiest, meanest, shallowest sites on the planet, is that it sounds "petty"?

Where the fuck have you been for the last twenty years?!

R114 - Harry fucked someone on TV??!!

Link please - and fast.

Heavens to Betsy, don't you worry punkin. The FBI will be here soon to arrest the "Brf trolls."

r121 these threads are always about hate. always. nothing to do with DL.

The Harkles are like the "breakout star" of a tv show who leaves to make it in movies or get a show of his/her own. Sometimes it works, usually it doesn't.

I don't see this interview turning out well for them here or over in the UK.

Excellent analogy, R125. Will they be Rhoda or David Caruso? Sorry, can't think of a reference that isn't 30+ years old.

After this year, I think Americans are so fucking done with these two. Even from over here, it is obvious TQ was exceedingly generous to these two selfish, ungrateful and exhausting twats.

Everyone Save The Date!

We'll be having a cast party on March 7, and popping the champagne when we DESTROY the Queen in the ratings!

Diana said Harry was like her, an airhead (her word) and William was deep like his father (also her word).

I'm not sure how the Harkles and the Queen are ratings rivals. One isn't going to be shown in the UK until whenever and the other one isn't going to be shown here.

We'll see both online and so will a lot of other people. Unless ITV has closed the deal and will be broadcasting it up against the Queen which they would never do, they're not in the same ratings space. It may be weeks before the Harkles run over there. The Queen's Commonwealth Day service never runs here.

The US has a much larger viewing audience than the UK, obviously more people will see the Harkles and Oprah. I still don't think it's going to do them much good.

BBC and ITV passed.

This article says ITV are most likely to air it, r131.

Can't see Channel 4 doing it.

Channel 5 would be just about perfect for the tacky Harkles, though.

Interesting, R131, I figured the BBC wouldn't touch it but I figured the ITV rumors were true.

Maybe the pricetag was too high.

Prince William & Kate Middleton Are 'Utterly Aghast' at Meghan & Harry's Oprah Interview

We knew this was going to be the reaction, didn’t we? Prince William and Kate Middleton are not at all on board with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s “nothing off-limits” interview with Oprah Winfrey on Sunday, March 7. With the ongoing family feud, and a pandemic to keep them apart, there was only going to be one reaction from the royals and this is it.

“It’s just beyond the pale for William and Kate, especially in light of the dreadful timing with [Prince] Philip in the hospital,” a source told US Weekly. “They are utterly aghast.” And the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge do have a point because there is a family health emergency going on, but CBS probably won’t take the interview off their scheduled programming just for a hospital stay.

For Meghan and Harry, it’s an opportunity to get their side of the story out — especially after the British media has driven a narrative that isn’t always fair to the former royals. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex had to be patient and wait for the right time to tell their tale. Of course, the monarchy would probably argue that there’s never a right time to share such intimate details about senior royal life.

But no one seems to want to respect Meghan and Harry’s life choices. It may be different than serving under Queen Elizabeth, but they aren’t abandoning their passions for service toward their community, establishing Archewell Foundation has been a big part of their exit plan. The stateside couple also wants to mend fences with William and Kate, that’s a priority for them.

“They won’t talk negatively about Prince William and Duchess Kate,” a second source said to Us Weekly. “They don’t want to put any more fuel on that fire.”

The problem is that the royals don’t want any aspect of their private lives aired to Oprah, and they certainly don’t want to look bad for not trying to protect Meghan from the harsh glare of the British press. They’ve been there once before with Princess Diana, so a second time around isn’t the best look.

The only way this feud might be put to rest is an in-person, behind-closed-doors meeting. The brothers need to battle it out and come to an understanding that they both made different choices in life — and neither choice is a bad one.

"Utterly aghast," huh? Toldja we were hardcore.

"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex had to be patient and wait for the right time"--- they've never done that before, why start now?

And they talked plenty negatively about Kate in Finding Freedom, why stop now?

ITV leaked the interview story that prompted the Queen's bombshell announcement so inconveniently early for the Harkles, so I suppose ITV airing the interview in the UK has a certain symmetry.

It's one thing to get big ratings because lots of people tuned in. It's another thing for the interview to do you real long-term good publicly.

The Panorama interview got huge ratings, too. It left Diana with egg all over face, no more marriage, booted out of the royal family, de-HRHd, and I strongly believe was a factor in her early death.

Interviewers aren't interested in making you look good if they know controversy will get them better ratings. What happens to you afterward is your problem.

The Harkles not only want to be rich and famous: they want to be loved. Using the interview as yet another venting platform to expose their breathtaking sense of entitlement isn't likely to generate love.

You can't hide on stage.

The phrase "utterly aghast" will mean something to Harry, r135, even if it means nothing to you.

It's rarely used.

It won't be much of a ratings puller in the UK for whoever manages to air it. Oprah isn't that big a deal here and no-one is interested in Meghan. I'd imagine ITV saw the price tag and burst out laughing.

[Quote]So what that she said no one has asked about her.

So what that she said this in one of the most impoverished countries on earth with staggering rates of infant mortality, loss of limbs in children due to an ongoing land mine problem, and a nasty problem with rapes. So what?

R136 Well said. FF was on long self-aggrandising work that everyone knew Meghan directed. It was also loaded with hate toward William and Kate. It was supposed to "set the record straight" and show Meghan as the warm, sweet, generous, noble creature she is.

Instead, it became a joke, showed Meghan exactly as really is, hot a burst of PR and sales for a couple of weeks, and then sank. The only thing the book unintentionally showed was how shallow, whingeing, resentful, and tone deaf she and Harry are. And, it nearly came within shooting distance of embarrassing her publicly if that trial had gone forward.

She's poor at long-term strategy. What she loves is getting the boot in when her entitled feathers are ruffled.

The upcoming interview is as much a trap as an opportunity, with potentially disastrous fallout for Harry should this marriage go south.

It will be interesting to see if, this time, Meghan breaks her usual pattern and takes the advice of cooler heads.

[quote]Using the interview as yet another venting platform to expose their breathtaking sense of entitlement isn't likely to generate love.

[quote]The upcoming interview is as much a trap as an opportunity, with potentially disastrous fallout for Harry should this marriage go south.

Not only Diana's jaw-dropping Panorama interview but also Uncle Andrew's recent effort might have given Harry some pause, to lie low and play a longer game. Best not to make a bad situation much worse. But to quote Deep Throat, the truth is that these aren't very bright people.

"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex had to be patient and wait for the right time"

That's a really bad joke. They've been leaking nasty stories about William and Kate and the "toxic" atmosphere of the BRF and Britain since that mind-bogglingly tone-deaf performance of Meghan's in Botswana.

Where do you think Omid Scobie got that story about how Harry threw the Queen's working-class dresser under the bus for not giving Meghan her tiara to try on when they showed up demanding it without making an appointment and how Harry then screamed at his grandmother over it?

From HM herself?

They've done nothing but do their best to paint themselves as victims of Capo William, Cold Kate, Stuffy Queen, and Racist Press since the day Meghan got her foot in the door.

She'd made an enemy of Kate before the wedding ring was on, and of Andrew (who I still think leaked the Tiaragate story to Robert Jobson to pay Meghan back for using his daughter's wedding to announce her pregnancy), had had to be taken aside by the Queen re which tiara she got and for (erroneously) screaming at the wedding banquet chef because he'd found an egg substitute that [gasp!] actually tasted like egg.

"Meghan, dear, we don't talk to people like that here," the Queen said.

Hey, no one tells Meghan she can't lash out at staff, throw cups of tea at people, and behave like . . . well . . . like Someone died and made Meghan Queen.

The backchat on how atrociously she behaved on that tour, including to her husband, is still there.

One of these days, one of those people (including the staffer who was paid off by the Palace to keep shtum about Meghan throwing the cup of hot tea at her), is also going to "set the record straight".

"these threads are always about hate. always. nothing to do with DL."

Poster missed the intro about pointless bitchery.

It's okay to post bitchery about Armie Hammer, Donald Trump, Angelina Jolie, Britney Spears, Kanye and Kim, Lindsay Lohan, Justin Timberlake, Meryl Streep, Diana, Eugenie and Beatrice and their dreadful clothes, William and Kate . . . but the moment a GOSSIP SITE posts gossip about one of the greatest gossip stories on the planet, the Harry and Meghan Dog and Pony Show . . . it's "hate".

Nothing to do with DL, nothing whatever.

Right.

You fucking moron. Go back to the Sussex Squad calling for the death of the Queen. That's where you'll find REAL hate.

[quote] Oprah isn't that big a deal here and no-one is interested in Meghan

And we all know why that is.

[quote] They've done nothing but do their best to paint themselves as victims of Capo William, Cold Kate, Stuffy Queen, and Racist Press since the day Meghan got her foot in the door.

Or in other words, they've told the truth.

Haha looks like the BRF is trying to make Sophie "happen." Guess they're trying to compete with Meghan.

"Sophie, Countess of Wessex is sharing a rare look inside her home.

Queen Elizabeth's daughter-in-law, 56, took part in a virtual event with the British Fashion Council on Wednesday to present the 2021 Queen Elizabeth II Award for British Design to Priya Ahluwalia. She showed off the printed Victoria Beckham dress she wore for the occasion in a photo that provided a peek at the Bagshot Park home she shares with Prince Edward and their two children.

Eagle-eyed fans noticed that to the right of the photo, sitting on a china cabinet, appears to be a black-and-white photo of Prince Edward with Lady Louise at Prince William and Kate Middleton's 2011 wedding. Lady Louise, now 17, was a bridesmaid at the event, matching other bridesmaids in a white dress and flower crown.

On a side table placed under a painting, it seems Sophie has childhood photos of Lady Louise and son James, Viscount Severn, now 13.

Inside the china cabinet are ornately decorated plates, while a model ship is also displayed on the piece.

Sophie talked fashion during the video call, revealing that her style icons include Angelina Jolie — "I always think she looks amazing," Sophie said — and Queen Rania of Jordan, who she said "always looks stunning."

The royal humbly described her own style sense as a "work in progress."

"Britain is an island – albeit a big island – and if you look at what royal women have worn over generations they have made huge fashion statements reflected from foreign shores, and that's what helps make our style," she said.

On Thursday, the Countess of Wessex, Grand President, St John Ambulance, undertook Her Royal Highness' first shift as a St. John Ambulance Care Volunteer at an NHS vaccination center. Sophie has joined a growing team of over 10,000 volunteers who have been trained and deployed to NHS vaccination centers across England, as part of the extraordinary collective effort.

Sophie looks to have lost a bit of weight. I think someone here commented on her weight gain a while back. Maybe she's lurking and took it to heart!

R142 has obviously spent little to no time in the UK. It's more racially progressive than the US in many ways. Mixed marriages have been widely accepted for generations, and black people are well represented on television.

I meant R145, apologies.

R148 - Blacks are not only "well-represented" on British television, they are represented at 10% OVER their actual UK population, which is 4%. Yet they appear on British television at 14% according to a recent survey of progamming. In fact, it's gotten to the point where despite the fact that Britain is still nearly 80% white, you take your life in your hands with a programme that is all-white even if it is aligned with historical fact.

Every time someone whinges that casting must represent "the way Britain looks today" they omit that Britain "looks" 80% white.

R147 - Sophie is extremely progressive and an ally. She just doesn't keep reminding the world of it the way some of her husband's relatives do.

Nobody cares about Sophie, R151.

Sophie is the heart and soul, r152

Sophie seems to be doing a nice job for the Queen. They're also buddies, Sophie and the Queen hang out and watch WWII documentaries. She seems perfectly fine, if quite bland. That's sort of what they're looking for anyway.

When she first married in, she thought she'd be Diana 2.0. That didn't work out, obviously, and it's hilarious she thought she'd be able to replace Diana.

Sophie is amazing.

Harry and Meghan look so relaxed and happy. I think being free of the burden of being an official member of the BRF agrees with him. And who cares if Meghan is calling the shots? She’s obviously way more savvy than him. He’s spent his life having everything done for him. He wants to be as normal as possible. Good for him.

You think he looks relaxed and happy, r156?

He's looked miserable ever since Smugs showed up in his life. Always scowling or looking adrift while Smugs pushes on, brittle smile at the ready.

Not to me...r157. He will be find. Obviously there’s a period of adjustment.

Sure, R158, he's "having a period of adjustment" which is why he looks drugged/out of it/rumpled/pasty/scowling/miserable/etc.

"relaxed and happy"

And still trying to worm their way back in

[quote] Sophie is the heart and soul

Sophie is the heart and soul.... for Klan Grannies.

Sophie is a Klu Klu Klanner?

Is that what r161 is saying?

Does anyone have a link?

Meghan and Harry are so much better looking than William and Kate.

She looks like a preying mantis in r163's pic

Meghan's increasingly fake looking hair is very off-putting. It seems to become more exaggerated with each Zoom appearance.

Whoever said Octomom on whichever thread hit the nail on the head. I'd been previously thinking a Morticia Adams/Angelina Jolie hybrid.

Think of all the impoverished Uigher slaves whose hair she is actually wearing, r165

I still say Meghan should make a dramatic move and chop her hair into a classic Natalie Wood style. I honestly think she'd look amazing and "classy," and would highlight how, really, Kate is too old to be wearing her (admittedly gorgeous) hair so long. Meg, honey, if you're lurking....quit copying your sister-in-law and the Kardashians and be a trendsetter!

I mean, look at her. Anyone else think this 'do would suit Meghan very well?

R168 - Jesus, sometimes I forget how beautiful Wood was when young, with a gorgeous, petite yet hourglass figure.

That hairdo would be the absolute BOMB on Meghan. It would take five years off her face, and make her look chic, modern, and confident instead of like a caricature of a woman trying to be something she isn't. Her hair would only need to be slightly relaxed, and it would likely recover some of its strength instead of the thinning and brittleness caused by the last 20 years of brutalising it to look like something Meghan never had and never will have.

She's a fool not to do it. It would look sensational.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Also, that hairdo would allow Meghan to really showcase some beautiful earrings and necklaces. She’d look so glamorous.

The Harkles' PR is now putting it about that Harry has "assured his grandmother" that he would never say anything to embarrass her in that upcoming interview.

Because, as we all know, he's never said anything to embarrass her in the past. Like, the recent past. Like, two weeks ago when he signed on to a statement publicly insulting her and drawing an equivalency between occasional writing of philanthropic cheques to a daily life of public service over 70 years.

And, of course, he wasn't speaking for his wife in that assurance, only himself.

^And, of course, he didn't promise not to embarrass his father or his brother.

R172

Kate did cut her hair to shoulder length a couple years ago. It didn't really work for her so she grew it out again.

I disagree , R74, I thought she looked great and much more polished. However, the bangs she sported briefly were another story…no bueno.

I can see why Kate would want to flaunt that glorious head of hair. For both her and Meghan, it’s probably at least about the husbands preferring it long and sexay. But I for one miss actual hairstyles.

R175 - I agree with you on the bangs. You'd think it would have worked on Kate as she has a small nose (no woman with a large nose should have bangs), but her features aren't distinguished enough to carry them, instead, the banks eclipsed them.

But her hair otherwise is gorgeous and I agree that the shoulder length look is better - she has seemed to move away from the sausage curls in the last few years.

And I agree that both husbands' view of the matter plays strongly in their wives' abandoning all hope of ever really cutting their hair. Prince Andrew allegedly had a fit when Fergie had to bob her hair after carrying Eugenie, as Fergie lost so much hair during the pregnancy.

And Fergie looked cute with that bob. MM really should cut hers. The cocker spaniel look isn’t flattering past the teenage years.

I'm old enough to remember when celebrity women - most younger women, for that matter - changed their hairstyles all the time. Seems like long, straight, and parted in the middle has been the go-to for at least 20 years now. If you look at any group photo of college girls, they're clones. I find it boring.

[quote] I still say Meghan should make a dramatic move and chop her hair into a classic Natalie Wood style.

No way!

She's almost 40. Short hair would make her look old and frumpy.

I also believe that she has naturally curly hair, so she's going to work the long, straight hair for as long as possible.

MM's sausage curls are looking increasingly old hat and juvenile, despite her newly freshened face. I see Kate has ditched them in favour of long straight hair, and that sets a high bar for MM to compete with.

[Quote]She's almost 40. Short hair would make her look old and frumpy.

We're not talking a granny perm. Take a look at Natalie Wood's photo upthread. There's nothing old and frumpy about it. Are you suggesting Meghan is too inherently frumpy to pull it off?

Whatever the case, the Octomom/Afghan hound look does her no favors. Who'd have thought she could do worse messy tendrils?

I think Natalie looked incredibly sexy (but also “classy”) with that hairdo, and Meghan would, too. It’s the long hair that looks try-hard on older women.

I want her to go wild during a "wig phase" after most of her hair falls out from over-processing.

Those infamous Dangling Tendrils are back for the Oprah interview. She looks awful and the dress looks like it's scattered with grey/white gunshots (yes, they're supposed to be flowers).

She's wearing Diana's tennis bracelet. I really wonder what the story is with all of Diana's jewelry. Who got what and can Harry get any of it back in the divorce?

I wonder what she was thinking when she decided to "don" the £3300 frock and 10s of £000s worth of jewels for that interview.

I also adore this heightened pixie worn by Miss Ross (who knew from HAIRSTYLES). Neither Meghan nor Kate would ever EVER, though.

Meghan is WINNING!

And if Philip dies during the airing of her show, it will bring in even BIGGER ratings.

YUGE!!!

[quote] Royal Family has 'more important things to worry about' than Sussexes' interview as Prince Philip moves hospitals

The Royal Family has "more important things to worry about" than the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Oprah Winfrey interview, Buckingham Palace aides said on Monday night, as the Duke of Edinburgh was transferred to a leading cardiac hospital.

Prince Philip, 99, was taken by ambulance from the private King Edward VII’s Hospital to St Bartholomew’s Hospital in central London just hours after a dramatic clip of the Sussexes’ “shocking” comments was released by a US television network.

The timing of the couple’s interview was described as “unfortunate” amid speculation about whether it might have to be pulled.

Palace aides suggested that the family’s focus was solely on the Duke, who had already spent 13 nights in hospital and is expected to remain there until at least the end of the week.

One said: “The family is very worried about him and their thoughts are very much with him rather than this Oprah interview. They have much more important things to worry about.”

Another senior aide said: “This programme is really not something we are focusing on at the moment.”

A US television insider described the timing of the interview, as the Duke’s grandfather remained in hospital, as the network’s “worst nightmare”.

They said: “Every network prepares for all eventualities but ultimately, the show must go on. This programme has been significantly trailed and will almost certainly go ahead as billed.”

Joe Little, managing editor of Majesty magazine, said that while the timing was “unfortunate” it was out of the Sussexes’ hands.

“There is unease being expressed about the timing of this interview, which is not particularly helpful, but the ball is out of the Duke and Duchess’s hands.

“This interview has been hyped significantly by CBS and the ball is very much in their court. The transmission date is likely to be set in stone and I can’t imagine it being pulled.”

Concern for the Duke, who turns 100 in June, was heightened as Buckingham Palace announced that he had been transferred to St Bartholomew’s, where cardiac specialists will continue to treat him for an infection but will also “undertake testing and observation for a pre-existing heart condition”.

The Palace added in a statement: “The Duke remains comfortable and is responding to treatment but is expected to remain in hospital until at least the end of the week.”

The Duke, who in 2011 received treatment for a blocked coronary artery, was carefully shielded as he left the King Edward VII hospital at around 11.15am.

Large umbrellas were used as a protective screen as he was transferred into a waiting ambulance. Police officers and security guards clear a pathway for an ambulance as it leaves the rear of the King Edward VII Hospital - PA

The Palace did not immediately confirm he had left, opting to wait until he had arrived at St Bartholomew’s before making the announcement.

The Duke, who turns 100 in June, was admitted on Feb 16 for "rest and observation" after feeling unwell.

Although he was expected to be discharged after just a few days, the Palace later revealed he was being treated for an infection and would remain in hospital for several more days.

St Bartholomew’s, a NHS hospital that also offers private care, is the largest cardiac centre in the UK and is described as “a world-leading centre of excellence” that uses advanced technology and the latest drugs and treatments.

Palace sources have repeatedly insisted that although the Duke has never before spent so long in hospital, his doctors were "acting with an abundance of caution".

Throughout his stay, he has had only one royal visitor, the Prince of Wales, who spent around 30 minutes at his bedside on Feb 20.

Last week, the Earl of Wessex said his father was "a lot better" and was "looking forward to getting out". He said the family was keeping its "fingers crossed".

****In other words... "WE SURRENDER TO YOU MEGHAN!!"****

“An infection”.....staph. Or it’s endocarditis. Yep, he’s circling the drain.

If he kicks it the night of Meg's big Oprah show, I'll laugh and laugh and laugh.

When is this interview supposed to happen?

This is going to be a disaster for everyone.

You can feel it already.

Hasn't this shit been cancelled yet?

We've pulled out every weapon in our arsenal, and nothing has worked!!!

I think it's time to get the people we used in the Diana hit job, to finish this one.

We need to get rid of her, once and for all!

I'll sign the paperwork.

Why is there a thread that says the interview has been cancelled?

Has it really?

I don't see anything on the internet.

Head to head?

Meghan will win.

The BRF is weak and stupid.

They don't have anything on a Hollywood actress.

The BRF doesn't want this Oprah shit-show cancelled, my God no.

This is going to bury the Harkles.

This interview is now poised to work in the BRF's favor. The exposure of Meghan as a bully of other women, two of whom are WOC, is fucking devastating.

Tonight's the BIG NIGHT when Meghan will finally CRUSH the British Royal Family!!!!

Can't wait!

Poor BRF.

Harry and Meghan are going to demolish you.

Some final thoughts:

I have a feeling that some of the rumors re what H&M will discuss is being overblown. I actually don't think they'll go hard on the BRF or name names in any negative way. They will probably praise the Queen. I think most of Meghan's direct ire will be towards her own family (Markles), as we know Oprah's production team hunted down a lot of footage of Tom and Yosemite Sam talking to the media to use tonight. She can spend much time complaining and painting herself as a victim that way, without stirring up the ire of BP and the entire UK.

The problem with that of course is people aren't tuning in for a re-hash of the Markle family saga. No one cares - they want to see dirt flung at the Windsors. And as much as that would make news, I can't see H&M going scorched earth like that. It hurts the brand and might make LA power players wary of working with them.

Both will of course go hard on the British media. The much-ballyhooed phrase "it was unsurvivable" was likely about their perceived stress at the hands of the UK press. I'd bet that Oprah brings up the 'murder avocados' articles and contrasts the coverage Meghan received vs what Kate got for same situations - similar to the Buzzfeed article that went around last year...they may touch on troubles with "the Firm" but not as much as is hinted by the teaser drops last week.

One hopes they will be forward-thinking, in that they use the time to promote their new ventures and not gripe about past situations. That would certainly serve their future interests, but wouldn't be as ratings-friendly so I'm not sure how much we'll see of it. A gripe-fest would please Oprah and the network, but not future Sussex business partners.

It also might not go over well with the American public, given that many in the past year have barely survived COVID or lost family, friends of jobs to it. "Unsurvivable" indeed. We'll see how it all plays over the coming week.

Go, Meghan!

Rip them a new asshole!