Over half of New Mexico in yellow and green counties.
Meghan Markle compared losing her voice after marrying Prince Harry to Ariel's story in 'The Little Mermaid'
During her interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan Markle compared being "silenced" as a royal to the princess Ariel's story in "The Little Mermaid."
10 major ways Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's love story differs from Prince William and Kate Middleton's
From how the couples met to the ages they were when dating, the royal brothers' relationships with Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton aren't too alike.
- The Daily Beast
Joe Pugliese/CBSThe contemplation of suicide, blatant racism, and a family of “trapped,” emotionally stunted snobs: nobody expected Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s interview with Oprah Winfrey to be as dramatic as it was, or as grim. It was less a night for popcorn and low-stakes royal dish, and more one for stricken looks of surprise. One bombshell and within-palace-walls horror story followed another, one numbing thud after another. The opening revelation that Kate Middleton had made Meghan cry, not the other way round—as had been previously reported—was a relatively innocent aperitif. This grand guignol was just getting started.Meghan Markle: ‘I Just Didn’t Want to Be Alive Anymore’Harry and Meghan told a similar raw story of gilded nightmares just as Princess Diana told BBC’s Panorama in 1995. We have heard it before, and assumed the institution might have changed in response to the criticism that followed. Not a chance.It was every terrible part of being a princess/duchess in a fairytale-gone-wrong as Diana had told—with a happy ending of a kind, although the question lingering at the end, despite the principals’ smiles was: at what cost? Harry said he felt his mother’s spirit during this time, as well as living off her money having been cut off by the royal family. “She saw it coming,” he said.The British tabloid press, and Harry and Meghan’s harshest critics, will likely find ways to dismiss their words, to criticize them anew. Perhaps, as has happened before, Meghan and Harry will be decried as rich cry-babies, entitled whiners. But these familiar attacks will be harder to make, given how the couple told their stories to Oprah. Britain will finally see this documentary tonight, Monday.Oprah did not, as her detractors expected, simply act as a friend with a shoulder to cry on; she didn’t supply warm bathos or easy platitudes. Sure, she visited the couple’s hens. She joyfully welcomed Meghan’s pregnancy bump. But she interviewed with care and rigor. Every time Meghan or Harry waffled or said something imprecise, she asked them to be precise—especially when it came to identifying the racist or racists within the palace who demeaned Meghan, and who queried how dark Archie’s skin would be when he was born.That person (or persons’) identity remains unknown, but the stricken expressions on Meghan and Harry’s faces, their determination not to tell Oprah, suggest someone who was very close to them, or significant within the palace. The possible darkness of Archie’s skin, the fact he would be the child of a biracial couple, apparently necessitated he would not be thought of as a prince, and that he deserved no security.Oprah asked questions about what had gone wrong in the royal family, and was told bluntly about a catastrophe that—if true—shows just how unfit for modern purpose the royal family is. This was such a compelling interview, brilliantly done, that two hours did not seem enough. Indeed, Oprah said more would be revealed on CBS This Morning in a few hours time, co-anchored by her best friend Gayle King. Sure, Meghan was not asked about the investigation into bullying allegations that broke after the interview was recorded and had so focused minds before its transmission, and which seem—for now at least—the least of the royal family’s concerns.That family is very selective when it comes to opening investigations. For instance, at the time of writing there is one underway about alleged bullying by Meghan Markle of palace staff, and not one about Prince Andrew’s friendship with dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.Here is a suggestion for a few more, after Meghan and Prince Harry’s interview.Is it true a palace figure raised “concerns” about the “darkness” of unborn Archie’s skin? If so, whose racism was this? Why did they feel they could voice it to the baby’s father and mother? Why is this being said in the 21st century? What does it say about the royal family as an institution? Was it a royal family member, an aide, who? Will they be as thoroughly investigated, and if necessary reprimanded, as Meghan? What does the royal family have to say about this proud racism it exhibits directly to a woman of color, carrying a royal family member in her belly?Another investigation idea. Meghan said she felt suicidal when she was five months pregnant and that she approached the palace authorities seeking help, and was effectively told to get lost—when they surely have access to all the best doctors and specialists in the land. This reminds the casual royal observer of the complete dereliction of care when it came to Princess Diana, who was also left by this family to go mad within the confines of the palace.This investigation would focus both on both alleged cruelty and ignorance. Cruelty, because a woman is clearly struggling to maintain her psychological equilibrium. She is not only suffering, she is suffering right in front of you, and you are essentially rolling your eyes at her as if she is an inconvenience. Is this true? Who are you, the people that reportedly did this? And what are you, the institution that facilitates this behavior?After Diana died, so much was written about the changing royal family; that it would be the wake-up call to embrace at least the vestiges of 20th and now 21st century thinking. “Progressive” was the word. Harry and Meghan’s interview showed just how bogus that PR window dressing was. This is an institution, if Harry and Meghan are telling the truth, that is incapable of change, and more than that—actively resistant to it, and vicious to those who represent change, or who herald it. The royal family is not geared to welcoming such figures or forces. According to Harry and Meghan, the institutional instinct rather is to destroy. Prince Harry made brutally clear how deficient his father Prince Charles had been, and said—just as he felt “trapped,” so did his father and brother. The only winner in his recitation of awfulness was the queen, who Harry praised to the hilt.If we believe the couple, their departure from the royal family was quite literally a life or death situation. Harry left the royal family to save his wife’s life, and his son’s future. And to save himself. In her one misconceived idea, Oprah edged into the finale-of-Pretty-Woman territory, when she set up the dynamic of the couple saving each other, and it would have been easy for Meghan and Harry to go along with that, summoning up the image of Richard Gere and Julia Roberts on that apartment ladder joyfully clinging on to each other, allegedly equal saviors (but really, c’mon!).But Meghan could not go there. She said one of her regrets was “believing them when they said I would be protected,” meaning the royal family. They had done the opposite; they had left her not only exposed, she made clear, but life-endangeringly desperate. She told them this, and they did nothing. (Buckingham Palace, of course, may respond to this litany of charges, and claim things unfolded very differently—we shall see.) Harry and Meghan cautiously accepted the Pretty Woman dynamic Oprah offered, but their grim smiles suggested this was less a triumphant romantic ending, and more a case of lives saved by the grittiest of margins.Let’s say Pretty Woman had ended with Richard Gere weeping with fear on the ladder because of his fear of heights, and Julia Roberts coming to help him with the aid of the emergency services—that was more the tone of the end of the Oprah interview. When Meghan said it was “greater than any fairytale you ever read,” it sounded like she meant that this story could have ended very differently; that happiness had only just been snatched from the jaws of unhappiness and desperation.There seem to be a number of vying forces, which will govern the future of royal relationships after this shattering interview. The royal family were right to be nervous. This morning they will likely be pondering how on earth to respond to it.Judging by the sheer scale of anti-Harry and Meghan briefing hours before the broadcast, a war—and one without end—seemed very much on. We learned, variously, in the British Sunday papers that Meghan had exploded over a blanket shaded the wrong kind of red; that Harry was nicknamed “The Hostage” before his wedding, and that he had shouted “What Meghan wants, Meghan gets” in a row over a tiara.The other forces, probably mindful of how this rift might look publicly, were telling certain reporters that reconciliation between the warring Harry and William might be on the cards. The Sunday Telegraph said William and Kate were hopeful for a reconciliation whatever was said in the Oprah interview, and the Telegraph said that Harry was “determined to stand shoulder to shoulder” with William at the unveiling of a statue of their mother Princess Diana, scheduled for July 1 at Kensington Palace on what would have been her 60th birthday.Harry “desperately hopes” to attend the event and considers it “a priority,” the Telegraph said. That sense of old-school royal duty and loyalty mirrors the undertones of Queen Elizabeth’s message to the Commonwealth, broadcast earlier on Sunday by the BBC. The queen spoke of “friendship and a spirit of unity” in her address, praising examples of “courage, commitment, and selfless dedication to duty” in Commonwealth nations and territories, notably by those working on the front line, whether in health care or other public services. “The testing times experienced by so many have led to a deeper appreciation of the mutual support and spiritual sustenance we enjoy by being connected to others,” the queen said in the gentle program—also starring Prince Charles, Kate, William, Camilla, and Sophie, Countess of Wessex—which was in marked dramatic contrast to the Harry and Meghan interview. Post-pandemic, the queen said she looked forward to “a common future that is sustainable and more secure.”Harry and Meghan said they wanted to “move on” after the broadcast of the interview, considering it their opportunity to have their say, and now “consider the matter closed,” sources told the Telegraph. “It was something they felt they wanted and needed to do but now they have done it, they feel a line has been drawn under that chapter of their lives and they want to move on,” a friend told the paper.After the Oprah interview, however, all of this seems entirely unlikely—unless the royal family finally opens its minds and hearts to the multi-layered dysfunctionality it so willingly fosters and tolerates. The number and nature of revelations requiring detailed and considered response by the palace are simply too many. The fact that Meghan came so close to taking her own life; the fact the color of Archie’s skin was a matter of “concern” are matters that are un-spinnable (unless the palace challenges their veracity)—as is Harry’s damning summation of his relationship with Prince Charles. The Oprah interview is a depth charge. It can only be a roadmap to restored relations if the royal family rouses itself from its air of lost-in-time prejudices and snobbery, and answers the questions Meghan and Harry have laid at its door. As for Harry and Meghan, they didn’t seem too bothered about making friends, or making nice. Telling their truth seemed far more important, and this they did—devastatingly.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
Health officials ease rules for the fully vaccinated to show "what a world looks like beyond Covid".
- USA TODAY
'Let the people vote': Biden signs executive order promoting voter access, marking anniversary of Selma march
President Biden signed an order directing the government to expand access to voter registration and election information, among other directives.
- The Independent
Biden signs executive order to expand voting rights: ‘If you have the best ideas, you have nothing to hide’
‘Every eligible voter should be able to vote and have it counted’
- Associated Press
Pittsburgh allowed an early three-goal lead to slip away in a loss to Philadelphia earlier in the week. The Penguins didn’t make the same mistake Sunday against the New York Rangers. Sidney Crosby capped Pittsburgh’s three-goal outburst in the first period, and the Penguins beat the Rangers 5-1.
- CBS News
A century ago, King George V decreed the children and grandchildren of the monarch automatically get prince or princess titles. Queen Elizabeth made a special ruling to extend that to William's children.
Biden's German shepherds have been sent home to Delaware after a 'biting incident' with White House security officers
The two German shepherds were sent back to the Biden family home after 3-year-old Major displayed aggressive behaviour to White House security staff.
- NBC News
Stone Foltz, 20, a sophomore at Bowling Green State University and a new member of the Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity, was allegedly hazed during an initiation event when he was made to drink alcohol.
- The Telegraph
Nearly 11,000 women could be living with undiagnosed breast cancer following 'protect the NHS' drive
Nearly 11,000 women could be living with undiagnosed breast cancer following last year’s drive to “protect the NHS”, new analysis reveals. A reluctance to burden the health service during the pandemic’s first wave, coupled with a drop in GP referrals and suspensions of screening programmes is wreaking a “tragic cost”, experts said. Research by the charity Breast Cancer Now found there were 10,700 fewer people diagnosed with breast cancer across the UK between March and December last year. The team analysed a range of data to reach the figure, including the number of people starting their first treatment for breast cancer, the number of women screened each month and the length of time for which services were paused. During the first wave of the pandemic, breast screening services were paused for different amounts of time across the UK, including around four months in Scotland and five months in Wales. While services were not officially paused in England, Breast Cancer Now said this still happened because hospitals turned their attention to fighting Covid. Overall, it said nearly 1.2 million fewer women in the UK underwent breast screening between March and December. Meanwhile, there was a 90,000 drop in referrals to a specialist for patients with possible symptoms of breast cancer in England between March and December. Even though services have resumed, the charity said they are operating at around 60 per cent capacity due to the need for social distancing and infection control. The charity on Tuesday warned of a forthcoming "perfect storm", with health workers in imaging and diagnostic services under unprecedented pressure due to the pandemic, having already been "chronically under-resourced" beforehand. Baroness Delyth Morgan, chief executive of Breast Cancer Now, said: "The tragic cost of almost 11,000 missing breast cancer diagnoses is that in the worst cases, women could die from the disease. "And looking ahead, while we cannot know the full impacts of the pandemic, what we do know now is that over the coming years the number of women coming forward could overwhelm our already over-stretched workforce. "Women with breast cancer have already paid an unacceptable price due to the pandemic – we simply cannot afford for any more time to pass before UK Governments invest in and tackle the crisis facing the cancer workforce.” Overall, it put the number of patients undiagnosed with breast cancer due to the pandemic at around 8,900 cases in England, 890 in Scotland, 687 in Wales and 248 in Northern Ireland.
- Business Insider
A new lab study shows troubling signs that Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID-19 shots could be far less effective against the variant first found in South Africa
A mutation called E484K appeared to help the variant, first found in South Africa, to evade antibodies produced by the vaccines, the authors said.
Through her jewelry and Armani lotus dress, Meghan Markle sent a message of hope, paid tribute to Diana, and may have made a nod to the Commonwealth.
- USA TODAY
The Internal Revenue Service could begin delivering payments in about two weeks under President Biden's COVID-19 relief package, analysts say.
- Business Insider
A mask-less Trader Joe's customer in Texas had a meltdown after being denied entry - and it reveals how states' new rules endanger workers
In Texas, frontline workers are forced to impose corporate rules on masks without the support of the state, exposing them to customer backlash.
The Republican National Committee dismissed a cease-and-desist demand from former President Trump's attorneys Monday after Trump's lawyers told the organization to stop using Trump's name and likeness, Politico reports.What they're saying: The RNC "has every right to refer to public figures as it engages in core, First Amendment-protected political speech, and it will continue to do so in pursuit of these common goals," chief counsel Justin Riemer wrote in a letter sent Monday afternoon.Stay on top of the latest market trends and economic insights with Axios Markets. Subscribe for freeThe RNC letter highlights Trump's "close" relationship with RNC chair Ronna McDaniel and states that Trump personally approved the use of his name for fundraising."The RNC is grateful for the past and continued support President Trump has given to the committee and it looks forward to working with him to elect Republicans across the country," Riemer wrote.The RNC did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.Trump attorneys sent a letter on March 5 requesting that the RNC "immediately cease and desist the unauthorized use of President Donald J. Trump’s name, image, and/or likeness in all fundraising, persuasion, and/or issue speech."It was one of many cease-and-desist demands, which the Trump team sent to GOP committees including the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.The big picture: Trump worked closely with the RNC during the 2020 campaign, raising over $366 million together, according to Politico.Trump is expected to speak at the RNC's upcoming donor retreat in Palm Beach, a portion of which has been moved to Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club, per the Washington Post.Like this article? Get more from Axios and subscribe to Axios Markets for free.
- The Telegraph
To outward appearances, the Markle Sparkle was fully in evidence as the Duchess smilingly worked the room, her hand touchingly entwined with Harry’s. With her midnight blue ball gown shimmering in the glare of the flash bulbs, the five-month pregnant royal appeared in sparkling form as she joined her husband for the premiere of Cirque du Soleil in Jan 2019. Yet following an extraordinary TV interview with Oprah Winfrey that has left the Royal family reeling, we now know that the “suicidal” former actress only went ahead with the engagement at the Royal Albert Hall because she did not think she should be left alone. The claim, along with the suggestion that an as-yet unnamed Windsor questioned how dark Archie’s skin might be when he was born, form the main charge of the bomb dropped on the monarchy during the couple’s two-hour tell all.
- The Telegraph
Beneath a soft blanket of Californian therapy-speak, the Sussexes were in vicious attack mode. Everyone – except the Queen – was a target. Prince Charles, Prince William, the Duchess of Cambridge, unnamed members of the Royal Family, advisers, the press... All of them are guilty, guilty, guilty – of not having the warmth, goodness and openness of the Sussexes. There was bombshell after bombshell. A regular theme was that, every time something was said by the press to be Meghan’s fault, it was apparently someone else’s fault. So it wasn’t the Duchess of Cambridge who was reduced to tears by Meghan before the Sussexes’ wedding. No – it was the Duchess of Cambridge who made Meghan cry but did the right thing: “She owned it, and she apologised.” There were allegations of racism and the very sad revelation that the Duchess had had suicidal thoughts – “I just didn't want to be alive any more”. But, again and again, the suggestion was that the only people in real pain were the Sussexes. There was barely a mention that the world is going through a pandemic that has killed more than 2.6 million people. When Prince Philip, seriously ill in hospital, was brought up, it was to advertise Meghan’s kindness in immediately getting on the phone to the Queen to ask how he was. Every blow was coated in a Ready-Brek glow of virtue signalling and self-congratulation. In the Sussexes’ own eyes, they can do no wrong. To some, this will be seen as a deeply damaging programme for the Royal family. Millions of viewers – particularly younger ‘woke’ ones – will side with Harry and Meghan. But while the Twitterati may be up in arms, the broad sway of British opinion will cleave to the heart of the Royal family – the Queen. How modest and short her Commonwealth Day message was on Sunday, particularly in comparison with the Sussexes. She praised the “selfless dedication to duty… demonstrated in every Commonwealth nation”. She has demonstrated that selfless duty ever since she came to the throne 69 years ago; she showed signs of that selflessness almost since her birth over 94 years ago. The British public knows this and respects her for it. The Queen has never given an interview in those 94 years. Harry and Meghan have given two interviews within a month to two of the biggest names in American television: Oprah Winfrey and James Corden. Even Princess Diana had been married to Prince Charles for 14 years before her explosive Panorama interview in 1995. The Queen’s greatest PR message is the power of silence. The tactic works like a charm, but only the Queen, it seems, realises this. Princess Diana, Prince Charles and, most recently, Prince Andrew have all made disastrous errors in TV tell-alls. In 1988, Prince Charles asked the late Sir Peregrine Worsthorne, then editor of The Sunday Telegraph, how he should conduct his public life. Perry said Charles should confine himself to public duties and never air his private thoughts. The Prince buried his head in his hands, moaning: “But then I’m just a cypher.” Perry was right. Royal interviews by disaffected family members are big box office – but they are only ever harmful to all concerned. Over the next few weeks, it will be the Royal family that takes a battering over the latest revelations. But history tells us that the Sussexes’ attacks will have less and less traction as time goes by. Like all other members of the Royal family not in the direct line of succession, they will drift further and further from the action. Prince Harry was born third in line to the throne; he is now sixth. When Princess Margaret was a child, she was second in line. If she were alive today, she’d be 21st in line, after Lena Tindall, Zara Phillips’s younger daughter. In California, the Sussexes are now utterly detached from royal life. There’ll be no sign of them on state occasions; no more sightings of Harry in his dashing uniforms, now he’s lost his military role. It is clear the Sussexes have made the full migration from Royals to Californian celebrities. Harry has begun to speak California psychobabble: “I’m not comfortable with sharing that.” California speak is also a tremendous device for masking hypocrisy and this will slowly be unmasked. Thus Meghan saying in the interview that all she wants to do is to “live authentically”, while feeding her chickens – oh yes, and broadcasting to billions, too, and picking up multi-million dollar pay cheques.
- The State
Here’s when you could get your stimulus check under the new bill.
The 22-year-old modeled in a Givenchy fashion show over the weekend.