Boasting staggering viewing figures of around 50 million so far, and promising explosive fallout for members of the 1,000-year-old British monarchy, the recrimination-laced 90-minute interview given by the embattled couple Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Prince on 7 March has triggered a global reaction.
Viewers have been left digesting the stunning claims and invariably questioning the legitimacy of some of the bitter accusations levelled at members of the royal fold.
The gravity of some of the claims made in the interview hosted by chat show celebrity Oprah Winfrey warrant challenging, writes the Daily Mail.
A report from the outlet aspires to dig deeper into some of the inflammatory claims, offering ‘another side’ to the story.
Whose Tears Were They?
Amid the firestorm of accusations over how the Royal Family treated her, during the interview Meghan Markle claimed she had been reduced to tears prior to her wedding in 2018.
Markle claimed the spouse of Prince William had subsequently apologised for the incident.
“It was a really hard week of the wedding. And she was upset about something, but she owned it…,” said Markle, referring to an incident that allegedly following a fitting for the bridesmaids' dresses.
According to a report in The Times this week, a day after the mentioned incident, the Duchess of Cambridge had taken a bunch flowers to Nottingham Cottage, where Meghan Markle and Prince Harry were living at the time, yet the future sister-in-law had the door slammed into her face.
However, just six months after the royal wedding, reports suggested that the now-Duchess of Sussex had been the one to force Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge to shed tears.
Offering a third version is journalist Omid Scobie, who in the biography Finding Freedom declares that no one had cried, adding: “There were no tears from anyone.”
'Wedding Sham'
Meghan Markle dropped a bombshell by revealing in the conversation with the billionaire chat show host that she and Prince Harry were married three days before their actual star-studded wedding.
“No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said: 'Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us,” she said.
However, if there really were just 'three' people present, then a legal wedding can't actually have happened, writes the outlet, adding that the law dictates that anyone tying the knot in England requires two witnesses, as well as the person officiating, which means that, overall, at least five people should be present.
Otherwise, it claims, the Archbishop of Canterbury had presided over a fake royal wedding at St George's Chapel, at Windsor Castle, on 19 May 19, 2018.
The claim was disputed by the Special Licences Section of the Office of the Archbishop, is cited as stating:
“A special licence was issued for the marriage in St George's.”
According to a source at Lambeth Palace, cited by the UK media, the episode Meghan Markle referred to had been a 'rehearsal' of the wedding ceremony.
'Willing to Lie'
According to the Duchess of Sussex, she had been upset by the fact that when distorted, in her opinion, reports linked with her name hitting the press, the Palace failed to go on record by attempting to present her version of events.
“They were willing to lie to protect other members of the family, but they weren't willing to tell the truth to protect me and my husband,” claimed a seemingly offended Meghan Markle.
However, according to a cited insider:
“There were clearly two versions of the same event. Whatever the institution said would only draw more attention to it.”
It was added that ‘convention’ would have rendered impossible for royal press officers to weigh in on any private incidents, particularly if the facts were likely to be ‘in dispute’.
Furthermore, Buckingham Palace ‘spin-doctors’ are reported to have taken the Duchess’ side on several high-profile occasions, ensuring that a spate of stories allegedly failed to make it to print.
This ostensibly was the case with stories about ‘extravagance’ in the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage by Meghan Markle.
'Dark Skin' Snubs
In one of the most explosive claims, an unidentified member of the Royal Family had allegedly voiced concern about 'how dark' the couple’s firstborn’s skin might be. Meghan Markle decried this example of racism.
As Oprah Winfrey led up with, “Because they were concerned that if he were too brown, that would be a problem? Are you saying that?'
The Duchess responded by saying:
“If that's the assumption you are making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one.”
The outlet suggests there were inconsistencies with the statement, as two different versions of events were presented to the chat host by Prince Harry and his spouse.
Meghan Markle claimed there were 'several conversations' about Archie's skin colour having occured 'in those months when I was pregnant'. Prince Harry suggested there was just one conversation 'right at the beginning . . . before we even got married'.
Megxit Plans
As for just when the couple hatched their grandiose Megxit plan to step away from royal duties, just under two years after their marriage, Meghan Markle said she entered the royal fold intending to devote her life to service, saying, "Our plan was to do this for ever."
However, when later asked whether the couple had 'blindsided' the Queen by their January 2020 decision, Prince Harry stated:
“I've never blindsided my grandmother… I have too much respect for her.”
Meghan Markle quipped, "So I remember when you talked to her several times about this [Megxit] over . . .”
“Two years…,” added Prince Harry.
As blowback from the interview, the popularity of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle has sunk to new lows in the UK, a new YouGov poll has shown, carried out on 10-11 March.
Surveyed several days after the scandalous programme aired in the UK, only 45 percent of respondents have a positive attitude toward Prince Harry now – an eight point drop from the week before.
48 percent of Britons who took part in the poll have signalled their disapproval for the royal.