Royal Families

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      6 Faces of Diana, Princess of Wales, to Stream Online

      by

      The film “Spencer” is the latest in a long line of TV and movie depictions of Diana. Here’s a selection.LONDON — Nearly 25 years after her death, Diana, Princess of Wales, remains a fixture in British culture and on screens both sides of the pond.Her life is often remembered as tragic: an unhappy marriage to Prince Charles, a complex private life hounded by paparazzi, a shocking death in a car crash at the age of 36. But she was also, truly, beloved, earning the moniker “the people’s princess” for her charity work and candor.This complexity has inspired countless television and film adaptations of her life. The latest, in theaters Friday, is “Spencer.” Starring Kristen Stewart as Diana and directed by Pablo Larraín, the film takes place over one Christmas holiday with the royal family, as Diana’s marriage (and possibly her mental health) unravel. Each Diana production — made in every decade since she became a public figure — takes a different perspective on the princess. Here’s a list of six varied examples, all available to watch online.‘Diana: Her True Story’ (1993)Serena Scott Thomas in “Diana: Her True Story,” which aired on NBC in 1993.NBCIn the early 1990s, U.S. television networks scrambled to make small-screen movies depicting Charles and Diana’s much-publicized unhappy marriage.Andrew Morton’s explosive biography “Diana: Her True Story” was published in 1992, and a year later NBC aired a movie adaptation of the book, starring Serena Scott Thomas as Diana and David Threlfall as Charles.This is a soapy rendering of Diana’s marriage, but the plot generally sticks to the story that “The Crown” later explored with more nuance, and the differences between the couple are evident from the start. Charles is explicit that he doesn’t see love as a prerequisite for marriage, seeing it as a “partnership.” Scott Thomas’s Diana, meanwhile, believes that her role is to support her husband and that, with time, she can make Charles love her.Scott Thomas doesn’t quite embody Diana’s looks or mannerisms, but she does capture the personable nature that made her so popular. Her portrayal of the princess is sympathetic and she frequently reacts to Charles’s mistreatment, screaming at him after she finds a photograph of Camilla on their honeymoon and throwing herself down the stairs while pregnant with her first child. Sticking to revelations in Morton’s book, Diana’s struggle with an eating disorder is also depicted. (Stream via Amazon Prime Video; rent or buy on Amazon.)‘Diana: The Musical’ (2021)In Netflix’s “Diana: The Musical,” Jeanna de Waal plays the princess. Netflix“Diana: The Musical,” written by Joe DiPietro and Bon Jovi’s David Bryan, had its Broadway run swiftly shuttered because of the pandemic. Earlier this year a filmed version landed on Netflix.Starting with her initial courtship of Prince Charles, the two-hour musical flies through notable events in Diana’s life at a dizzying pace. There are numbers on her paparazzi intrusion (with lyrics like “Ain’t nothin’ like the hunt, Ain’t nothin’ like the thrill. Find the right bird, Then go in for the kill”) and contrasting Diana’s common touch with the public with the royal family’s stuffiness (“All right, I’m no intellect,” she sings while watching a cello performance with Charles. “But maybe there’s a discotheque, where the prince could hear some Prince and we’d all get funkadelic.”)This version of Diana (played by Jeanna de Waal) is particularly one-dimensional. There isn’t much of an opportunity to dwell on her emotions, or provide insight on her mental state, and the filmed musical was not well received. “This is a Rocky Horror Picture Show of cluelessness and misjudged Judy Garlandification,” wrote Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian. (Stream on Netflix.)‘King Charles III’ (2017)Katie Brayben plays the ghost of Diana in “King Charles III.”BBCBased on the play of the same name by Mike Bartlett, “King Charles III” is set following the death of Queen Elizabeth II and sees Charles (Tim Pigott-Smith) grappling with the death of his mother and his transition to king.In the vein of a Shakespearean tragedy, the ghost of Diana (Katie Brayben) appears several times in the made-for-TV movie. Always kept distant from other characters and wearing white, she reassures a stubborn Charles (“You think I didn’t love you. It’s not true”) and a pained William, upset at his rebellious father (“You’re now the man I never lived to see”).The ghost of Diana sparked a British tabloid storm, particularly when it was set to be broadcast soon after Prince Harry spoke about the impact losing his mother had on his mental health. Bartlett defended her inclusion: “It’s a genuine investigation of what it is to be that family and in that role in the country,” he told the TV magazine Radio Times. “Diana is part of that.” (Rent or buy on Amazon and iTunes.)‘The Crown’ (2020)When we meet Emma Corrin’s Diana in Season 4 of “The Crown,” she is a teenager.NetflixThe posters for the fourth season of “The Crown” marked the show’s arrival in the 1980s by sandwiching the face of the queen (now played by Olivia Colman) between two new characters: Margaret Thatcher (Gillian Anderson) and Diana (a newcomer, Emma Corrin).We meet Diana as a teenager, and while Corrin perfectly captures the future princess’s look and subtle mannerisms, the show also emphasizes the down-to-earth quality that made Diana so popular with the public through scenes of her roller skating through the palace and going out dancing with friends.We see her struggling with an eating disorder, and with feeling isolated from Charles and the rest of his family, as well as with the complicated social rules around interacting with royalty.Corrin received a Golden Globe for her portrayal, and as is typical on “The Crown,” the role of Diana will be taken over by a new actress, Elizabeth Debicki, for the show’s fifth season.Five Movies to Watch This WinterCard 1 of 51. “The Power of the Dog”: More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Television

      How Jodie Turner-Smith Is Reshaping Anne Boleyn's Story

      by

      Jodie Turner-Smith portrays the ill-fated wife of Henry VIII in a new mini-series. The show has stirred debate in Britain, which is sort of the point.LONDON — Britain’s most recent rendering of the story of Anne Boleyn, the second of Henry VIII’s six wives, begins at the end. When the new mini-series “Anne Boleyn” opens, it’s 1536, the queen is pregnant and powerful — and has five months left to live.Anne’s story, which occupies a special place in the British collective imagination, has spawned an abundance of fictionalized depictions onscreen (“The Tudors”) and in literature (“Wolf Hall”). It is generally told as a morally dubious young woman seducing an older king into leaving his wife and his church, before she is executed for failing to give birth to a male heir.But the new mini-series, which premiered last week on Channel 5, one of Britain’s public service broadcasters, attempts to reframe Anne’s story, instead focusing on her final months and how she tried to maintain power in a system that guaranteed her very little.In the three episode-long series, Anne is played by Jodie Turner-Smith, best-known for her role in the film “Queen & Slim.” It is the first time a Black actress has portrayed the Tudor queen onscreen.“We wanted to find someone who could really inhabit her but also be surprising to an audience,” Faye Ward, one of the show’s executive producers, said in an interview. Since there were already so many depictions of Anne Boleyn, the show’s creators “wanted to reset people’s expectations of her,” Ward said.Turner-Smith’s Anne Boleyn, center, desperately tries to maintain power in a system that guarantees her very little.Sony Pictures TelevisionAnne (Turner-Smith) and her brother George (Paapa Essiedu).Sony Pictures TelevisionMadge Shelton (Thalissa Teixeira), Anne’s cousin and lady-in-waiting.Sony Pictures TelevisionThe series employs a diverse casting playbook, in a similar vein to the Regency-era Netflix drama “Bridgerton.” But whereas that show’s characters are fictional, in “Anne Boleyn” actors of color play several white historical figures: The British-Ghanian actor Paapa Essiedu plays Anne’s brother George Boleyn, and the British-Brazillian actress Thalissa Teixeira portrays Madge Shelton, Anne’s cousin and lady-in-waiting.Although race does not figure overtly in the show’s plot, the program makers adopted an approach known as “identity-conscious casting,” which allows actors to bring “all those factors of yourself to a role,” Ward said.For Turner-Smith, that meant connecting her experiences with the ways in which Anne, who was raised in the French court, was an outsider and suffered at Henry’s court.“As a Black woman, I can understand being marginalized. I have a lived experience of what limitation and marginalization feel like,” Turner-Smith, 34, said in an interview. “I thought it was interesting to bring the freshness of a Black body telling that story.”Casting Turner-Smith as one of Britain’s best-known royal consorts has caused debate in the press and particularly on social media in Britain, with “Anne Boleyn” trending on Twitter the day after the series premiere.In the newspaper The Daily Telegraph, the writer Marianka Swain called Turner-Smith’s casting “pretty cynical” and wrote that it was designed to have “Twitter frothing rather than adding anything to our understanding of an era.”Others, though, have welcomed the show’s perspective. Olivette Otele, a professor of the history of slavery and memory of enslavement at the University of Bristol, noted in The Independent newspaper that the series arrived at a time when Britain was “soul searching” about how to understand its colonial past. “The past is only a safe space if it becomes a learning space open to all,” she wrote in praise of the series.It was important to the show’s creators to center the narrative around Anne’s perspective, rather than Henry’s (played by Mark Stanley).Sony Pictures TelevisionDuring the show’s press run, Turner-Smith’s comments about the royal family’s treatment of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex — including that having her in the family was “a missed opportunity” for the monarchy — made headlines in Britain.Meghan’s treatment by the palace — which she told Oprah Winfrey in a bombshell March interview had driven her to thoughts of suicide — is representative of “just how far we have not come with patriarchal values,” Turner-Smith said.“It represents how far we have not come in terms of the monarchy and in terms of somebody being an outsider and being different, and being able to navigate that space,” she said, adding that “you can draw so many parallels if you look for them” between Anne and Meghan’s attempts to figure out life within a British palace.“There is very little room for someone brown to touch the monarchy,” said Turner-Smith — who, upon being cast as Anne, fully expected the move to draw criticism in the country.For the actress, that presented even more reason to push back against people’s assumptions about Anne. “Art is supposed to challenge you,” she said. “The whole point of making it this way was for a different perspective. What is going to resonate with somebody by putting a different face to this and seeing it in a different way?”Dr. Stephanie Russo, the author of “The Afterlife of Anne Boleyn: Representations of Anne Boleyn in Fiction and on the Screen,” said there were many reasons for Britain’s fascination with and attachment to the Tudors, and Anne specifically. The “soap opera” of a younger woman disrupting a long-term marriage remains fascinating, she said, as does the rise and fall of a powerful woman.There is also a patriotic element, Russo said: Anne’s daughter was Elizabeth I, the monarch who oversaw Britain’s “golden age,” when William Shakespeare was writing his plays and many historians credit the British Empire as having been born.The series was conceived as a feminist exercise, unpacking what Eve Hedderwick Turner, the show’s writer, called “those big, insulting and detrimental terms” attached to Anne, which at the time included accusations of treason, adultery and an incestuous relationship with her brother.“There is very little room for someone brown to touch the monarchy,” Turner-Smith said.Sony Pictures TelevisionIn the mini-series, Anne falls out of favor with Henry after a stillbirth. No matter how nominally powerful or ambitious she is, she is no match for the forces that seek to extinguish her, which come to include her husband, his advisers and the country’s legal system. All the while, she tries not to show vulnerability in public.It was important, Hedderwick Turner said, for the creators to put “Anne back in the center of her story, making her the protagonist, seeing everything from her perspective.”The political machinations of Henry VIII and his advisers, his internal life and his motivations are largely obscured in the series. Instead, viewers are privy to Anne’s state of mind and her relationship with her household’s ladies-in-waiting.“Henry is spoken about as this great man, because he had all of these wives” and killed some of them, Turner-Smith said. “It’s just like: Actually, there’s a woman at the center of this story who is so dynamic and fascinating and interesting.”Hilary Mantel, the author of the “Wolf Hall” trilogy charting Thomas Cromwell’s life serving Henry VIII, wrote in a 2013 piece for the London Review of Books about how fictionalized accounts of Anne’s life communicate society’s contemporary attitudes toward women.“Popular fiction about the Tudors has also been a form of moral teaching about women’s lives, though what is taught varies with moral fashion,” she said.What, then, does this “Anne Boleyn” say about today’s world?“We’re finally getting to a place where we’re allowing women to become more than just a trope,” Turner-Smith said.Traditionally, when playing a female character, “you’re either the Madonna or you’re the whore, right?” she said. But in this series, “We’re saying we’re unafraid to show different sides of a woman.” More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Television

      Oprah, Meghan and Harry Draw 17.1 Million Viewers to CBS

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The British Royal FamilyliveInterview and FalloutWhat Meghan and Harry DisclosedWhat We LearnedRace and RoyaltyAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyOprah, Meghan and Harry Draw 17.1 Million Viewers to CBSA two-hour special revived a faded TV genre, the “big-get” prime-time interview that once drew tens of millions for exclusive sit-downs with people like Michael Jackson and Monica Lewinsky.Meghan Markle and Prince Harry described racism within the royal family during an interview with Oprah Winfrey.Credit…Harpo Productions, via ReutersMarch 8, 2021Updated 4:36 p.m. ETOprah, Meghan and Harry drew a sizable audience on Sunday night, making for an old-style prime-time television moment in the age of on-demand viewing.Oprah Winfrey’s explosive two-hour interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, who had largely kept their silence after announcing last year that they would give up their duties as members of Britain’s royal family, attracted 17.1 million viewers on CBS, according to preliminary Nielsen figures.The number of viewers climbed as the show went on. It drew 16.9 million in the first hour and 17.3 in the second, Nielsen reported. That audience was about twice the size of the viewership for the prime-time ratings winner in a given week.In a time when Netflix and other streaming platforms dominate viewing habits, the ratings for “Oprah With Meghan and Harry: A CBS Primetime Special” were strong — but they did not come close to the figures of similar prime-time exclusives from past decades. And the number of viewers fell short of the 22 million who watched a similarly ballyhooed interview in 2018, a “60 Minutes” episode in which Stephanie Clifford (also known as Stormy Daniels) told Anderson Cooper about her past affair with Donald J. Trump.Ms. Winfrey’s special aired after days of anticipatory coverage hinting at what the couple might reveal about their experiences with the royal family and their decision to leave the palace behind.Meghan did not hold back during the interview, telling Ms. Winfrey that she had contemplated suicide while living as a royal. She also blamed Britain’s first family for not providing her with sufficient protection from Britain’s ferocious tabloid press and described racism within the royal family, saying that, during her pregnancy, there had been “concerns and conversations about how dark” the skin of her child would be. Harry revealed a strained relationship with his father, Prince Charles, and brother, Prince William.The high level of interest in a special on a big broadcast network was something of a throwback to a moment when prime-time television interviews, jampacked with commercials, became a gathering spot for a mass audience.The “big get” interview is a TV genre unto itself, in which a famous anchor or host elbows out rivals to land an exclusive sit-down with a newsworthy subject. It is also a genre past its heyday. Along with Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters, Ms. Winfrey, an interviewer extraordinaire who started her TV career in the 1970s, was a major player when the competition for such shows was at its height.In 1993, Ms. Winfrey’s prime-time interview of Michael Jackson at his Neverland Ranch, broadcast by ABC, attracted an audience of at least 62 million. Six years later, also on ABC, Ms. Walters sat down with Monica Lewinsky for a two-hour special that drew 48.5 million.Since then, the rise of digital media and its infinite screen-time options has cut deeply into the might of the big broadcasters. As the viewing audience fractured, opportunities for must-see prime-time interviews became vanishingly rare. Even the biggest one-on-ones of recent years have lacked the drawing power of the specials from two decades ago and more. The audience of 17.1 million for Ms. Winfrey’s interview of Meghan and Harry matched the number of viewers who tuned in when Caitlyn Jenner revealed that she was transgender to Ms. Sawyer on a 2015 episode of ABC’s “20/20.”The Sunday night special was unusual in that it was not overseen by a network news division. Ms. Winfrey’s company, Harpo Productions, produced it, and CBS paid at least $7 million to license the show, according to a person with knowledge of the arrangement. (The Wall Street Journal previously reported the figure.) The deal was also a gamble: It was taped after the network had bought the rights, according to two people with knowledge of how the show was made. During the interview, Ms. Winfrey said she had been trying to land the exclusive with the couple for about three years.CBS emerged the winning bidder despite Ms. Winfrey’s rocky experience at “60 Minutes,” where she was a special contributor in 2017 and 2018. In a 2019 interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Ms. Winfrey revealed that the show’s producers had criticized her delivery, saying she had “too much emotion” in her voice, even when she said her own name. (Ms. Winfrey has maintained a connection to the network through her good friend Gayle King, an anchor of “CBS This Morning,” and appeared on that show Monday.)Further complicating CBS’s attempt to get the big get was the thicket of media companies surrounding Ms. Winfrey and the former royal couple. Ms. Winfrey has her own cable network, OWN, and is a major part of the streaming platform AppleTV+. Recent episodes of Apple’s “The Oprah Conversation” have featured her interviews of Barack Obama, Dolly Parton and Mariah Carey.Meghan and Harry, for their part, signed a multiyear deal with Netflix last year to make documentaries and other shows. They also signed on to make podcasts for Spotify and released the first installment on Dec. 29. It included guest appearances by Elton John, Tyler Perry and other celebrities, as well as the first public utterance from their son, Archie.The pact between CBS and Harpo Productions was largely focused on TV rights. The interview ran live on ViacomCBS’s newly rebranded streaming service, Paramount+ but at least for now will not be available on Paramount+ for on-demand viewing. Instead, the special will be available on CBS.com and the CBS app for 30 days, a CBS spokesman said.Originally slotted for 90 minutes, it ended up a two-hour show. Before the broadcast, CBS released teaser clips, and British tabloids that have been unfriendly to Meghan shot back with anonymously sourced items on her apparent misdeeds.The estimate of 17.1 million viewers will only grow after Nielsen tabulates some viewers who streamed the special, as well as out-of-home viewing.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Television

      Prince Harry Finally Takes On White Privilege: His Own

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The British Royal FamilyliveInterview and FalloutWhat Meghan and Harry DisclosedWhat We LearnedRace and RoyaltyAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyCritic’s notebookPrince Harry Finally Takes On White Privilege: His OwnMeghan Markle and Harry’s interview revealed a catalyst for their reinvention, our critic writes: Harry’s racial awakening after attacks on Markle.Prince Harry and Meghan Markle speak with Oprah Winfrey about racism and other issues in a blockbuster interview on CBS on Sunday night.Credit…Harpo Productions, via ReutersMarch 8, 2021Updated 4:30 p.m. ETIt was well worth the wait. The first joint interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle since they stepped down from royal life last year (a process that became officially permanent last month) did not disappoint.I, for one, watched this tell-all with Oprah Winfrey while texting with many of the same Black women with whom I watched their wedding in 2018. Back then, we shared OMG emojis because we were pleasantly surprised by the way Black culture was so powerfully celebrated and Markle’s African-American identity so thoughtfully integrated into their ceremony at St. George’s Chapel.Now, we were aghast at the couple’s allegations that racism toward Markle and its various consequences were a primary reason they fled their home to find freedom in sunny California.Based on Markle’s deep commitment to women’s rights and the interview’s promo clip — Winfrey asks her, “Were you silent or were you silenced?” — I went into this assuming it would be a feminist revision of the couple’s fairy-tale romance. “The latter,” Markle responded in the interview. Later, she’d compare her life as a royal to Princess Ariel losing her voice after falling in love with a human in “The Little Mermaid.” In that analogy, this interview is the final breaking of that spell, with Markle now fully in control of her voice. It reminded us that she never needed a Prince Charming to rescue her, while showing us that their very modern marriage is what saved and ultimately liberated them both from the trappings and the trap that is the Crown.But therein lies the true catalyst for their radical reinvention: Harry’s racial awakening. Here, I do not just mean the accusations from the couple about the deep anxiety some royals had about the potential skin color of their son, Archie — which resulted, they said, in him not being offered the traditional rituals of the royal hospital picture, the title “Prince” and the security that comes with that status. Rather, the second hour of the interview was a culmination of a process that Harry had been undergoing since their first date in 2016, when he was becoming more cleareyed, confrontational and emboldened to take on the British monarchy into which he was born, and the white privilege that holds it up and has benefited him his entire life.Typically, we see racial awakenings as a tragic rite of passage for Black people. In slave narratives and early 20th-century African-American autobiographies and novels, there is often a moment in which a Black child realizes she is not only different from her white peers but that her darker skin or African-American parentage makes her inferior to them. The literary critic Henry Louis Gates Jr. once described it as a “scene of instruction.” In books like W.E.B. DuBois’s collection “The Souls of Black Folks,” from 1903, or Nella Larsen’s novel “Passing,” from 1929, this traumatic rupture is always intimate and severe, the first and most formative experience in a lifetime of racist insults.An official wedding photograph released by Kensington Palace in May 2018.Credit…Alexi Lubomirski/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAs Black parents, we try to prepare our children for these inevitable encounters with The Talk, the sage advice and survival strategies we hope might blunt the damage of these betrayals. But every Black person I know has had such a moment. Mine was my senior year in high school when my white classmates charged that the only reason I had been admitted to the University of Pennsylvania was because of affirmative action, an insinuation that equated being Black with being underqualified, and an injury that has caused me to obsessively overachieve in almost every aspect of my professional life.I’ve rarely heard white friends discuss their parallel experiences of first realizing their privilege. In fact, this summer was unprecedented in the sheer number of public figures and predominately white organizations that released statements or tweets acknowledging their role in perpetuating systemic racism. In private, I and many of my Black friends received more sympathetic emails or Black Lives Matter solidarity texts from our white colleagues than ever before. It seemed, suddenly, white people too were having their own version of The Talk.And in popular culture, these awakenings are appearing with more frequency. In this season of NBC’s “This Is Us,” Randall’s white siblings, Kate and Kevin, are, as a result of the Black Lives Matter protests this summer, slowly coming to terms with how much their own white household, and their ongoing refusal to deal with racism, has harmed their African-American brother, who was adopted.Without such recognition by our white family members and friends, racial inferiority is merely thrust onto Black people as a unique burden that we must bear, disprove of and reject. This innocence is at the core of white privilege, and by extension, white power.Back in 2005, when Harry wore a Nazi uniform to a costume party, it would have been impossible to predict his trajectory. By last fall, however, his awakening was well underway, with him talking about how his marriage to Markle immediately changed his understanding of race. “I had no idea it existed,” he said of unconscious bias in British GQ. “And then, sad as it is to say, it took me many, many years to realize it, especially then living a day or a week in my wife’s shoes.”Last night, he took it a step further. First, he noted how “the race element” distinguished the tabloid frenzy surrounding Markle from others in the past. “It wasn’t just about her, it was about what she represents,” he said. Next, he indicted his family for not taking on the racist attacks hurled at their own, and then linked their institutionalized reticence or refusal to intervene to Britain’s much longer history of imperialism.“For us, for this union and the specifics around her race, there was an opportunity — many opportunities — for my family to show some public support,” he told Winfrey. “And I guess one of the most telling parts and the saddest parts, I guess, was over 70 female members of Parliament, both Conservative and Labour, came out and called out the colonial undertones of articles and headlines written about Meghan. Yet no one from my family ever said anything. That hurts.”With this provocation, Harry suggests the Royals were not merely unwilling to accept his biracial Black wife and their multiracial child but also what Markle embodied: the millions of Black people throughout Britain and the Commonwealth who finally saw themselves in the monarchy through Markle’s existence, finding optimism in this interracial union.And with that confession, Harry declared his independence from British racism — whether he realizes it goes beyond his family’s treatment of his son and is an essential ingredient to the monarchy itself, I don’t know. But I turned off the interview wondering how American race relations will further change him. That the couple landed in the United States during a pandemic that has disproportionately harmed African-American and Latino families, and in a period of racial protest and rising white nationalism, feels a bit like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.But, maybe that’s the point.Freed from the constraints of not being able to confront racism head-on might mean that he will dedicate his life to dismantling it, not just out of necessity, but also as a way of writing a new chapter in his family’s history and bequeath his children a legacy of antiracism.And if that is the case, it really will be better than any fairy tale ever imagined.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Television

      In Oprah Interview, Meghan Says Life as Royal Made Her Suicidal

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The British Royal FamilyThe Oprah InterviewWhat Meghan and Harry DisclosedWhat We LearnedBehind the InterviewAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story‘I Just Didn’t Want to Be Alive Anymore’: Meghan Says Life as Royal Made Her SuicidalIn a bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey, the Duchess of Sussex said she had asked officials at Buckingham Palace for medical help but was told it would damage the institution.Oprah Winfrey’s highly anticipated two-hour interview with Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, aired on CBS Sunday night.Credit…Joe Pugliese/Harpo Productions, via Getty ImagesPublished More