Why didn’t Prince Harry & Meghan say anything to Oprah about the Duke of York?

(L-R) Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Prime Minister, Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds attend the annual Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall on November 09, 2019 in London, England.

There were so many surprising moments within the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Oprah interview, people barely had the time to point out what wasn’t in the interview. For instance, Oprah did not ask them any questions specifically about Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. There was some conversation about how Meghan and Harry were and are friends with Princess Eugenie and it also sounded like Fergie and Meghan are somewhat friendly. When you really think about it, it *is* strange that Oprah didn’t mention Andrew once, although it’s probably less strange that Meghan and Harry didn’t bring him up. So what’s up with that? Anna Pasternak – famously the author of Tatler’s Catherine the Great article – has some thoughts.

One royal expert believes there’s a good reason why Prince Harry and Meghan Markle didn’t bring up Prince Andrew during their bombshell tell-all with Oprah Winfrey. When the network first announced the special on Feb. 15, it revealed that nothing would be off-limits during the wide-ranging interview. However, Winfrey never asked the couple about the Duke of York, 61.

“I supposed it could be said that he wasn’t relevant,” royal author Anna Pasternak told Fox News. “It could also be out of loyalty and respect for his daughter, Princess Eugenie, who is close to both Harry and Meghan. And if that’s the reason, I think that’s rather charming because I think Eugenie has been a very good friend to both of them. It’s believed that [Eugenie] is probably the only member of the royal family who is the closest to them and has kept in touch. We don’t know the reason, but one can only suspect that maybe out of respect for her, they didn’t want to go into her father.”

In the interview, Markle, 39, confirmed that she and Eugenie, 31, knew each other before the former American actress met Harry, 36. Prosecutors in New York have wanted to speak with Andrew for several months as part of their allegations, made by several women, that some of Jeffrey Epstein’s staff and his girlfriend helped recruit him underage sex partners.

Pasternak is aware that some critics believe Andrew hasn’t faced the same media backlash as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after the couple spoke out.

“I think [those people] have a very short memory if they think that because Andrew gave his own interview and the backlash against him was intense,” she said. “He’s become a sort of a royal pariah, a non-person.”

[From Fox News]

“It could be said that he wasn’t relevant…” I mean… Andrew has always been an irrelevant person in the larger scheme of things, and he was specifically irrelevant to the larger story Meghan and Harry were trying to tell. That being said, the timeline of Jeffrey Epstein’s death and the Queen’s very public shows of support for Andrew definitely would have emphasized one of the points that Harry and Meghan were making. Namely, that the institution was perfectly capable of protecting and coddling certain (white) family members while they threw Meghan and Harry to the wolves and actively sabotaged them. The story of the institution smearing the Sussexes throughout 2019 cannot be told without the story of how the same institution did the most to help Andrew. That being said, I do think H&M probably avoided speaking directly about Andrew because A) they weren’t asked and B) they’re tight with Eugenie.

Trooping the Colour Ceremony, London, UK - 8 Jun 2019

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red, CBS.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

57 Responses to “Why didn’t Prince Harry & Meghan say anything to Oprah about the Duke of York?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Snuffles says:

    Probably because they aren’t involved in his mess and it would be a legal mine field if they did comment on it. It wouldn’t have illuminated their personal situation. And if they wanted to make comparisons in treatment, Kate was the better example.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “it would be a legal mine field if they did comment on it.”

      Oprah was fully aware of this. I think this why the Daily Mail has not covered Andrew more. The Daily Fail does not want to be dragged into criminal court over something real.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Please like the daily fail cares about legal cases. They protect the status quo of white men in power.

      • Elizabeth says:

        I’m sure Harry and Meghan despise Andrew but they have no control over him. Meghan is not responsible for Andrew, nor is Harry. That’s a question for the FBI, the English government, or the Queen and Charles. So it wouldn’t help.

        Andrew raped trafficked women and girls. It is an outrage he is remaining free, I am shocked Pasternak thinks he’s a non person, because he’s a royal prince living in luxury, free, not charged, not standing trial. It is his victims that I care about. They deserve justice. Period.

    • Mac says:

      Harry and Meghan have absolutely nothing to do with Andrew’s sh*t. There was no reason for Oprah to ask them about him.

      • Carmen-JamRock says:

        THANK! YOU!
        I mean, WTF? H&M were talking to Oprah about THEIR. LIFE. and THEIR. EXPERIENCE in the Firm. How does andrew factor into that? Sheeesh!

    • Izzy says:

      THIS. Why would Oprah drag them into that hot mess? She’s smarter than that.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I was hoping Oprah would ask about Andrew. First, because of the disparity in the treatment/protection that Andrew gets, despite being accused of trafficking and raping girls. And second, Meghan is clearly a feminist (which I like about her, she will speak out on behalf of women) — yet, doesn’t that conflict with the family’s (including, to a lesser extent, Harry and Meghan) protection of him and pretending the issue doesn’t exist?

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Mrs.Krabapple, I understand the connection to Meghan’s passion regarding women’s issues, but this interview wasn’t about their work. I just think that Andrew wasn’t part of their story while they were in the brf. He was sidelined and continues to be to today.

        Frankly, I think it would have been strange for Oprah to ask about him. Two different topics altogether.

      • HeyJude says:

        That’s probably precisely the reason they didn’t get into it. Meghan’s a feminist. Meghan’s worked with victims. She’d never want to “trade” on the victimization of underaged girls by Andrew to make a point about the monarchy selectively protecting people when they can and did make the exact same point by using other examples. Like holding up headlines as comparisons, talking about how Diana was kind of left out there on her own too, etc.

        It was covered enough by all that and none of it had to drag in underage rape victims into another spotlight they did not ask for to be used as tools to make a point.

    • MissMarierose says:

      I agree. There’s no good reason to mention Andrew at all and plenty of bad ones. It doesn’t help them to have their names mentioned in the same sentence as him and any statement about him would put the crazy anti-Sussexes in his corner reflexively.
      Let him hang himself.

    • Anance says:

      Andrew’s protection by the BRF is completely RELEVANT. It’s the tell, IMO. The BRF did not protect H&M; they actively leaked negative and encouraged the press to go after them. Conversely, William’s Rose “situation” was quickly shut down. Andrew lost working royal privileges, but not much else. The press no longer mentions him.

      Instead, they are dissecting the Oprah interview, trying to find areas where Meghan didn’t footnote herself to call her a liar. Word by word, the press has reviewed the interview.

      Why didn’t Oprah mention Andrew? H&M had an agreement with her not to. It is probably because neither has first-hand information about the topic, though I’m sure Harry knows the family rumors. So, the interview would have devolved into — “Well, I heard…”

  2. Becks1 says:

    I think part of the reason Oprah didnt ask about him was that it would have derailed the interview. As it was, it was a pretty wide-ranging interview, adding any discussion of Andrew would have just taken the focus off Harry and Meghan’s treatment by the Firm. And honestly what are Harry and Meghan going to say? They weren’t on Epstein’s island with him. I do think that Meghan was very careful in her one mention of Andrew, when she said he was at Royal Lodge the day she met the Queen and Fergie taught her how to curtsy.

    I do think when she repeatedly talked about the Firm protecting other royals, but not her, she was referring in part to Andrew, but also about Kate and William.

    • Cecilia says:

      Exactly! This interview was about the treatment of meghan and why she and her husband left. NOT prince andrew and his paedophile friends. I do thing that part of meghans treatment was due to the need of deflection form the whole epstein mess. But in essence its not what the interview was about l. And if meghan and harry do know something the right people to talk to would be the FBI not oprah.

      • Anance says:

        “Meghan’s treatment was due to the need for deflection from the whole Epstein mess. ”

        Yes! But, bringing it up would have clouded the underlying issue of racism. Why let Andrew derail their story.

    • Myra says:

      It would have pulled focus from the Sussexes story to have Andrew randomly inserted in there, especially considering that they cut out the parts on the Markles. Andrew’s story is not relevant to why the Sussexes left and interactions with him would have been minimal. However the way he was treated by the palace versus the way Harry was treated would be one for historians to analyse in later years when talking about racism in the royal family.

  3. Amelie says:

    I mean, what purpose would it serve really? Meghan wasn’t around during those years anyways when Andrew was going around with Epstein. She never met Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. And it’s tricky because Harry is tight with Eugenie who is most likely in denial about the things her father has done. Andrew and his issues are completely separate from Meghan and Harry leaving the UK and starting their own lives.

    • Bettyrose says:

      All of this. The interview was about their personal experiences and while the timeline overlapped with Andrew being called out publicly it didn’t overlap with the events in question. And it’s not likely either M or H have evidence that would further the legal investigation, so there was zero value or point to discussing Andrew.

  4. aquarius64 says:

    C) Oprah didn’t want to expose Harry and Meghan to a SDNY Q&A session about Andrew.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      Ding…ding…ding…we have the winning answer!

    • Eating Popcorn says:

      D) Harry doesn’t know anything about his uncle’s private life – I have only one uncle and don’t know any details of his personal life. Cards at Christmas and a FB hello at birthdays – that’s it.

    • TeamMeg says:

      What is SDNY?

  5. Lauren says:

    Probably out of respect for Betty whom both still seem to truly care for and Eugenie. Anything they do know is probably based on hearsay because I don’t think they really spend much time with Pedo Andy.

  6. Rapunzel says:

    Because unlike what the British Media is trying to sell you, Meg and Harry were not actually trying to harm the BRF in their interview. They weren’t out to disrespect the queen or destroy the monarchy, either.

    • Anance says:

      True. H&M were defending themselves with clear rules of engagement. They were not striking back with a killer blow.

  7. Capepopsie says:

    I like to believe they didn’t want to do what they were accusing the firm for. 🤔

  8. ennie says:

    Why do all those experts hardly ever mention Andrew? They question H and M so harshly, why doesn’t a man like Piers Morgan question anything Andrew like he does Meghan?

    • swirlmamad says:

      Because Piers Morgan would do the same things Andrew has done/is accused of without blinking. He’s lower than scum and I am sure thinks Andrew has done nothing wrong.

  9. ABritGuest says:

    It’s the media’s job to comment on Andrew incl investigating his pizza Express alibi, whether he tried to lobby US authorities for Epstein as claimed in court docs and whether taxpayers are covering his security. There have been clear double standards in how the firm & press has treated the Sussexes compared to Andrew. But don’t think it was up to H&M to highlight that& actually they didn’t speak much about other members of the firm at all.

  10. Scorpion says:

    Why would they mention him? They weren’t there when he was assaulting other people’s children! 🥴

  11. Sandra says:

    I think it’s out of respect for Eugenie. She can’t choose her parents and she and Harry are close. I can also see Fergie being kind to Meghan given that Fergie was treated disgustingly by the British Press and the family during her marriage to Andrew. There’s so much shade surrounding her now, but they were cruel to her about her weight and about her worth as a mother.

  12. Sofia says:

    Why should they? Andrew’s accusations are Andrew’s to deal with and acknowledge. The interview was about Harry and Meghan and other members of the family were only mentioned when needed i.e Kate in the crying story

  13. Lizzie says:

    Well it has been edited – who knows what was cut out.

  14. Victoria says:

    Chile, don’t put them anywhere near that mess. They left at the right time.

  15. Pétulia says:

    This excuse of legal minefield from the press to not report on Andrew is bullshit. If they are enough pressure on him to go talk to the FBI the firm might back down and let him go. Also there are equally terrible things he did that are not widely reported by the tabloids.
    As with Meghan and Harry, Andrew is indeed not relevant to their story in the context of the interview

  16. Linda says:

    I think another reason he wasn’t spoken about because the interview was meant to highlight what H and M endured while living in Britain. Speaking about creepy Andrew was off topic. As well, there could have been legal issues that they didn’t want to deal with if his name came up. The rampant speculation that would have happened in all media would have gone on for weeks and every gesture, eyebrow lift or mumbled word would have been analyzed to death giving rise to untruths. Even given what was revealed during the interview the Sussexes were very careful what was said.

  17. Neesee says:

    Who said they didn’t they’re still hour and a half of interview left that hasn’t been released!

  18. Alexandria says:

    They’re not responsible for Andrew’s mess so there’s no need to drag them into it. It would have derailed the interview. If Oprah was so interested in Andrew she would have tried to interview him or have an investigative doc about him.

    • L4frimaire says:

      Agree and Emily Maitlis already had that scoop. The less they say about Andrew the better because the ways the press, royal family, and even the British public pretend it’s ok, and not that big a deal speaks volumes.

  19. Abena Asantewaa says:

    Why would they, they have their own issues to deal with, why bring up something, they know nothing of, just to muddy the waters of their own story. Didn’t those 2 Russian imposters try to get Harry to talk about Andrew, I remember Harry saying he and Meghan are focusing on their own problems, and refused to talk about his uncle. Pasternak, just wanted them to get into the queens, bad books by talking about Andrew. She is a journalist, what is stopping her from writing about him

  20. Katinka says:

    Andrew looks like Peter Pettigrew

  21. S808 says:

    1. Probably a plethora of legal reasons and they probably don’t want to be summoned for questioning.
    2. While it’s definitely worth speaking about the treatment of Andrew for an actual criminal vs. the treatment of Meghan by both the media and the family, it would’ve derailed the focus of the interview which was not their intention.
    3. They seem closest to E&J and didn’t want to upset her by discussing her father in a landmark interview.
    4. It’s simply not their place to speak about the situation.

    • L4frimaire says:

      I agree that it’s not their place to speak about Andrew, nor their responsibility. They were discussing why they left and their experiences. Andrew already had his say and his train wreck interview was approved but the royals until it became a disaster. There is nothing to add to it. Also, I personally hate how Harry and Meghan are yoked to Andrew as compare and contrast. To compare their struggles of racist treatment, press hostility and abuse, and isolation from that family to Andrew, who consorted with a convicted pedophile and trafficker, actually benefits Andrew, and taints the Sussexes. It’s a terrible comparison and while it points out the hypocrisy of the whole rotten royal system, it is not their responsibility to say anything about Andrew when they are attacked so blatantly by the royals and their minions.

  22. windyriver says:

    On the CBS morning show the next day, Oprah said when she does an interview, she talks to the subject(s) beforehand and asks what they want to get out of the interview. Then she says what she wants to get out of it, and they come to a consensus for how to proceed (or words to that effect). Presumably within that framework, nothing was off limits, but there must have been a general agreement of some kind, or Oprah wouldn’t have made the statement.

    But, actually, we don’t know that Oprah DIDN’T ask about Andrew. The main interview was an hour and 20 minutes (not including commercials) but she had over three hours of taped material. Because of time constraints, a few equally interesting segments had to be shown the next day, but that totaled maybe 15 minutes additional, max. So we don’t know what she may have asked about Andrew or anything else.

    Once the material was taped, Oprah and producers had to decide what themes to highlight. Andrew had nothing to do with the main narrative Meghan and Harry presented about general racism, Archie’s skin color, unequal treatment within the RF, etc., which IMO was more of a bombshell and much more important to focus on.

    And of course, out of courtesy to TQ, with whom they have a good relationship, and possibly Eugenie, maybe Meghan and Harry didn’t want to go there publicly about Andrew, and they said so later after the interview had been taped. But they did say nothing was off limits…so who knows.

  23. A says:

    They didn’t speak on it bc what have they done w/ regards to Andrew that they need to answer for exactly? They aren’t the ones standing in open, public support of him. They aren’t the ones using their power and privilege as monarch to shield him from having to answer for his behaviour. They haven’t said a word about him in all of this time. Yes, they’re friends with Eugenie, but why shouldn’t they be? Eugenie isn’t the one who was friends with Epstein. She isn’t the one accused of raping trafficked, underaged girls. The fact that she likely has a complicated relationship with her father in that she cares for him, and isn’t sure how to react to all of this, is a foregone, but expected conclusion. She has a right to hold space in her life for that complexity without being questioned abt it for not publicly blasting her father 24/7.

    I don’t think that Harry and Meghan held back out of deference for Eugenie. I’m sure they’re mature enough people to be aware of those questions abt Andrew, and they know what to say if asked about it. They know that people have questions about it, but they’re not the people best equipped to answer them, nor should they be expected to do so.

    I’m not surprised that Anna Pasternak has swung over to this side of the royal pendulum. She actually does have connections with this crowd, so she knows what’s up. What’s a bit more surprising is that she sounds like she’s defending the Sussexes here, when the toff crowd that she’s a part of usually cape hard for the Cambridges, in spite of their dislike for Kate and the Middletons. They restrict their dislike to underhanded snobbery. I’m guessing the Tatler stuff burned a lot of the bridges bc of Baldy’s screechy tantrum, so the toffs aren’t exactly inviting the Cambs around for weekends at their country piles (COVID and Baldy’s rosebushing notwithstanding ofc) anymore. People don’t really want to be friends w/ you when you make a habit of threatening people w/ legal action for gossiping abt your affair. It doesn’t exactly make for good dinner conversation, does it.

    • Lyds says:

      I’m starting to really like Anna P. The Catherine the Great article was really the most revealing thing I’ve ever read about present day views of the Duchess of C. Just the fact that she has it in there, quoting the atristos as saying that Keen has basically chosen them as her tribe, even though she doesn’t truly belong…my goodness, the SHADE. I also can’t get over the “nothing to like or dislike” comment they made about Top CEO; cardboard, Mayo, and vanilla-scented candles, you have met your match in Stepford Kate…there is truly no there there.

      As for Anna’s comments about the Sussexes, I think it’s less that she’s on their side than she is on Eugenie’s. Forget not that the York sisters are still princesses and therefore, the pinnacle of British society. Eugenie, in particular, seems to be pretty well-liked and connected, so I can see her being well-acquainted with the Tatler staff and readership.

  24. Bunny says:

    Well, part of it may be that Oprah seems to have (at least) a cordial relationship with Sarah Ferguson, Sarah did a sit-down interview with Oprah in the late 1990s, and iirc she was on Oprah’s show at least once or twice separate from that interview.

  25. BearcatLawyer says:

    I also feel that there was truly NOTHING to be gained by bringing up the kid glove treatment Andrew has received (allowed to retire from royal duties but remain an HRH, keep his titles and military appointments, and live in Royal Lodge) as yet another example of how the Firm can protect members if it so chooses. Their situations were simply not comparable. Harry and Meghan were abused by the British media machine for merely daring to exist and unwittingly outshining Wandering Willy and Keen Guevara. Harry and Meghan have done nothing criminal nor have they been known to voluntarily associate with or accept favours from convicted criminals. Andy’s problems were entirely self-inflicted, and he rightfully got attacked by the worldwide media and public for his highly questionable behaviour and refusal to cooperate in the investigations of Epstein’s and Maxwell’s crimes.

  26. Cessily says:

    Protecting the pedo prince is the only thing that the Sussex’s were not accused of. Funny how the Firm/BRF are not concerned to have that “class of people” in their “inner circle”. It is disgusting.

  27. one of the Marys says:

    They had enough content to fill several hours simply discussing their own experience, no need to tack on Andrew. And he’s the older generation, direct that sh*t at the Queen and Charles. M&H had enough difficulty in their own generation, no need to start talking about Uncles.

  28. TeamMeg says:

    I take issue with framing the interview as a “tell-all” interview, a “bombshell” interview and all that. True, a couple bombs were dropped—truth bombs. The message was loud and clear “Lay off us now, KP leakers and British tabloid press”. Message hopefully received. I don’t think Harry and Meghan were there to “take down” the BRF, or anything remotely like that, tho. Their goal was to protect their rights and their security by letting it be known they had receipts. All of this has zero to do with Andrew’s pitiful, shameful arc of a disgusting life. So why would Oprah bring it up at all? Not relevant.

  29. Emily_C says:

    Because they were talking about themselves, not about him. It would have derailed the whole thing.

    There’s this tendency among certain clickbait artists and others, a Tumblrish/Twittery tendency I feel, to expect one piece of media to be all things. Why isn’t this book, article, interview, etc. addressing x issue? Because it’s not about that. People don’t get their information or entertainment from only one thing. We are also not goldfish. We are fully capable of connecting the dots without Meghan and Harry drawing the lines for us.

  30. Mel says:

    Why would they talk about him??? Not their circus…..

  31. Likeyoucare says:

    Andrew is the queen problem, why should harry be blamed for what he did?