Her concerns about Archie being a prince seemed twofold. Firstly, she seemed to think he was being treated differently from other great-grandchildren of the Queen, with the implication that this was because of race. However none of the great-grandchildren have titles, with the exception of the Cambridges' because they are in the direct line of succession. Secondly, she seemed to think that if he were a prince he would automatically be entitled to security, which is simply wrong. Security is decided by the Home Secretary and Metropolitan Police and based on itelligence-based assessments of risk - in any event, a baby would not get separate protection.

How could she be so so staggeringly misinformed? Surely she had carefully planned what would and would not be revealed, and this did not come out by accident. Harry must be familiar with the intricacies of royal protocol, if she is not. I can't believe she was too stupid or too lazy to make sure of the facts beforehand. Was it arrogance that only "her truth" mattered, regardless of the facts? Or was it deliberate, knowing that the allegation (especially with hints of racism) would be damaging and the target American audience would sympathise with her and not know or care about these details?

The whole interview seemed to me to be a brand-building exercise, aimed at establishing a narrative of her as a victim of Old World snobbery and racism. Oprah let her get away with it, and only occasionally challenged her or asked probing questions.