Monday - will you watch....and why?

One thing is for sure - Oprah may be Queen of Chat Shows and for good reason but she's not exactly Jeremy Paxman, is she!

This will be very one-sided.

The only actual legal part of a wedding is the paperwork - you don’t even need to do vows. So if they had a private ceremony with witnesses and signed the paperwork there, the public spectacle was just that. I think it’s ridiculous that we’re supposed to pay for - and want to watch! - someone else’s wedding, but I think that about the whole lot of parasites. The Church of England doesn’t dictate the law!

Callistemon

One thing is for sure - Oprah may be Queen of Chat Shows and for good reason but she's not exactly Jeremy Paxman, is she!

This will be very one-sided.

To be fair she’s a lot more than just a chat show host as urmstongran posted on a different thread

Calendargirl

Still on the subject of titles.

Archie could have been Earl of Dumbarton I believe, through one of Harry’s subsidiary titles, but H&M didn’t seem to want that.
Sounds like it had to be Prince or nothing.

When/if Charles becomes King then Archie would automatically become a Prince but H&M have renounced that.

If Meghan is miffed about that then she should have held on.

Sensible Anne rejected that for her children.

Princess Anne refused a title for her husband when she married and also refused titles for her children.

I am beginning to understand why the Duchess of Sussex talked at the start of her interview about 'her' truth. Too many of the things she said in the interview are unravelling in its aftermath.

A dreadful photograph of Megan with Harry as a ventriloquist's dummy is circulating on Fb.

I’m still undecided whether to watch or not.

Something however is crystal clear for me. One person’s truth may not be another person’s truth. H & M may very well be telling their truth. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t another truth or truths out there that someone else believes equally strongly. (This has been very evident over the last few years between two of my three DDs who see a family dispute quite differently.)

Meghan certainly shows no understanding of royal protocol when she complains about no title for Archie.

I had hoped that once the Sussex’s had disappeared across the pond our vitriolic press would leave them be but in my opinion they have courted publicity. So much for them wanting privacy. As for the rest I’m not bothered one way or the other. Much of it is only opinion and unimportant.

There are far more important issues such as climate change that need immediate attention.

To be fair she’s a lot more than just a chat show host as urmstongran posted on a different thread

Yes, but this is what this is tonight.

I remember when the story was that she was allegedly offered a cheap handbag in a Swiss shop because, she said, the assistant probably thought that she couldn't afford it because she is black.
The assistant involved was distressed and disputed that version of events.

I repeat - she is no Jeremy Paxman.

Prince Archie - doesn’t sound quite right, somehow.

I wonder what name they’ll come up with for their expected daughter.

I don’t think I’ll watch it now. I’ve seen enough clips and just don’t buy into their tale of woe.

From the clips I’ve seen, Oprah doesn’t interview them at all, she merely provides a stage for them.
Callistemon is correct in saying that Oprah is no Jeremy Paxman. Now that is an interview I would have watched, Meghan, Harry, and Paxman. He takes no prisoners.

Harry hopes to mend relationships with his father, can he be trusted ? If Charles did choose to speak to them will he be sure
they won’t give another interview, I couldn’t trust after a betrayal.

Parents usually forgive their children anything don’t they, but the public betrayal here will be very hard to get over. I feel sorry for the whole family, and Meghan’s family too.

It does not matter whether you want to take sides with H&M or the RF.

It is clear that the villains of the piece are the gutter press in the UK. - The Sun, Daily Mail, Express , Star and other despicable tabloids.

No just a more upmarket Jeremy Kyle show washing dirty linen in public

I keep wondering what Diana would have thought of the whole thing, but then if she had lived Harry most probably have turned out entirely differently, but who knows. I think she would have understood his turning away from the royal family and would have agonised over the press intrusion of Meghan at the beginning of their relationship.

Yes Varian, the gutter press strikes again.

Well, for what it's worth, Camilla Tominey (the Royal Correspondent for the Telegraph) on TV this morning said she was the journalist that actually broke the story of Megan making Kate cry; and although Megan in the interview said the reverse was true, Camilla insisted that her story was well researched and provided by an impeccable source. Hmm, interesting.

I'm sure I read somewhere that H&M gave Oprah most of the questions to ask and vetoed others put forward by O's team. All a PR stunt and no I won't be watching them it's all poor me me me. I'll give M a 10 for her acting skills, the slight pauses for effect, the little glances down, the timing of her replies. Hopefully they will be yesterdays news by next week. Good riddance to the pair of them, I am not buying a newspaper or watching the news until they are not in it.

Amber spyglass. You can’t have a private legal marriage ceremony in England. It must be in a public place where any legal objections can be raised. This is the purpose of the 29 days notice that must be given (special licence not withstanding)

It not just the paperwork. Two legal, public declarations must be made. One, that there is no legal reason why the marriage cannot take place (cue the objectors) and a declaration that a takes b in marriage. Also to be made publicly in front of witnesses. The witnesses then sign to say that they have heard these declarations.

I wonder why she said she was married three days before. We took vows . Just a slip up?

The Church of England is the established church. As such it can marry in the religious sense and the celebrant vicar can also do all the legal stuff, hence the signing of the register in the vestry. Other churches of the Protestant tradition can do the religious bit but the marriage is not legal until the registry office one is held. I worked with someone who married first in the registry office but did not consummate the marriage until they had had the religious service in their own tradition. They were both very religious but not C of E and did not regard themselves married until the church one. I think things have changed now but not for all denominations/traditions. I seem to remember a fuss being made a few years ago by the Jewish and Islamic mainstream faiths.
As for the curtsey, Americans aren't used to it even when they come here as visiting dignitaries. They don't curtsey to the President, although I believe they stand when he is in the room out of respect for his office. Michele Obama, I am pretty sure, did not when she met the Queen but of course she was on an official visit. Perhaps Meghan thought you just did what was normal in USA.
I did find it odd that Harry, nearly 40, seemed to think his father should still be financing him.

I disagree. When it comes to this excuse for an interview the only villains are H & M. The 'gutter press' has nothing to do with it and I shouldn't think they'll have a problem with any section of the press that supports this circus.

I agree Smileless it was their decision , could be they don’t
give a toss what we in the UK think, they are making money in
America so have pleased the Americans, more interviews perhaps.

I think you're right Annie they don't give a toss about what we think or a toss for the thoughts and feelings of H's family.

The population of the USA is approx. 328.46 million and according to American news channels, 17 million watched the broadcast so about 5.5%. Looks as if they're not as popular in America as they seem to think, and we are led to believe.

Agree Smileless

Also agree with you Devorgilla when you say it’s odd that a man aged going up for 40 thinks his father should still be financing him. Join the real world Harry, normal people in their thirties and forties don’t rely on their parents for financial support, they go out and work and pay their own way. And equally ridiculous, that Archie should have protection provided by his father, or by the British state! Why should we pay for a brass bean for Meghan, Harry, or Archie? Harry complains that he’s had to use the money his mother left to him. Forty million, including some from the Queen Mother. Isn’t that enough? How entitled are these people? It’s enough to turn me into a republicanist!