Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Queen Elizabeth Announces Prince Harry And Meghan Markle No Longer Working Members Of British Royal Family; House Impeachment Managers Face Deadline To Submit Impeachment Brief For Senate Trial; Case For President Trump's Impeachment Examined; Analysts Assess Possible Challenges For Prince Harry And Meghan Markle In Wake Of Split With Royal Family; New York City Passes Law Mandating Building Renovations To Increase Energy Efficiency. Aired 2-3p ET

Aired January 18, 2020 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[14:00:00]

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Stephanie Elam, CNN, Hollywood.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN breaking news.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello again, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

We're getting breaking news out of Buckingham Palace. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are no longer working members of the royal family. Queen Elizabeth saying in part, quote, "Harry, Meghan, and Archie will always be much loved members of my family. It is my whole family's hope that today's agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life."

CNN Royal Correspondent, Max Foster joining me now with the latest. Also joining us, CNN's Richard Quest. Max, tell us more about what you are learning about this separation between Harry, Meghan, and Archie, and the royal family.

MAX FOSTER, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I think it's a family crisis, having Meghan, who, which is how we will know them now, because they are no longer their royal highnesses. They do keep those titles, but they're not going to use them anymore. So we've got Harry, Duke of Sussex, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, but effectively Harry and Meghan. They've left as working royals. They're no longer part of the working monarchy. They no longer represent the Queen at engagements, which is what senior royals do.

They are giving up, Harry is giving up, his military positions, which is a big climb-down for him. They are hugely important to him. Also, they are serving as youth ambassadors for the commonwealth, which was another key role for both of them, but they're giving up those roles because they are effectively roles that represent the Queen. So this is a big moment. The couple were hoping to retain, I think, those roles, and some of the roles that they currently carry out, and then they wanted the freedom to step out into the private world and sign commercial deals, and earn an independent income.

Clearly, over the last week, negotiations have gotten to the point where there has to be the Queen, it must have been her saying you are either in or you're out, and they have chosen out. So they are no longer working members of the royal family, and they are going to repay the public funds used to renovate their cottage in Windsor, Frogmore cottage, which is $3 million, about 2 million pounds.

And the reason for that, is that a lot of attention for the couple really started when they were criticized for not allowing cameras, for example, into Archie's baptism when public money had been used to renovate the home. They weren't allowing enough public access when they were receiving public funds. So they are clearing their name on that, and they are saying that we have a right to a private life because not only are we not taking public money anymore, we are giving back the stuff that we have taken as well.

So they are now private individuals. They can do what they like, and they can sign commercial deals. None have been signed yet, but they must be looking toward the type of deals that they will be signing. There are many more complications to come, because they have to now find a way to manage their citizenship, their tax arrangements, and various other things in transferring over to Canada. It is very interesting that they won't be representing the Queen in Canada. They will be very much private individuals.

WHITFIELD: And then do we know anything about those living arrangements, of how much time they would be spending in Canada, and in England, do we know anything about whether that is spelled out in the arrangement from her majesty?

FOSTER: We don't know that, and that is being negotiated with the Canadian government. These things are carrying the correspondence, and she has been telling me they can stay up to 180 days without a visa, and then they would have to leave. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be able to come back, though. I think that they sorted all of that side of things out. I think this was about the extraction of the Sussexes from the senior royal position.

Next, we're going to be looking at how they're going to redefine themselves outside the royal brand. And I think there is an issue, it is clearly an issue with the name of their website, the name of their brand, which is currently Sussex Royal. They can't be seen to be capitalizing on the royal brand. This is something that has been built up over 1,000 years. They don't own that. So they are going to have to probably take that away.

And it was interesting to hear the Queen refer to them as Meghan and Harry, and I think this is an absolutely liberating moment for the Queen who has been really challenged, I think, over the last couple of weeks, and actually recent months, seeing her grandson, who she adores, very unhappy, but having to work with him as a boss, as a grandmother.

[14:05:03]

WHITFIELD: And what does that say?

FOSTER: They'll leave the firm, the royal firm, and they're allowed to be themselves, and she can talk to them as grandson and his wife. And I think this is about the family rebuilding their relationship and resetting, and hopefully one that establishes, this has been the fallout with the two brothers, they can rebuild their relationship as well. I think this is a very positive moment, and it really does speak to how the Queen is just phenomenal in these moments.

WHITFIELD: In fact, that is my question. What will Britain say this reveals about the Queen, that she would acquiesce, yet at the same time put her foot down on certain things in this arrangement?

FOSTER: So she has made it clear in a previous statement, which was very heartfelt as well, where she was very clear, she said she wanted them to remain as working royals. I think they were caught out by the initial statement from the Sussexes, and they have all had to understand that over the last week. And as they have worked through that, they have clearly come to the conclusion that there is no hybrid role that can be created in the way the Sussexes had wanted.

They either have to be in or have to be out. You can't have military positions representing the Queen and signing commercial deals which may potentially have some sort of link with an arms manufacturer, for example. I think that they sat there and they really worked that through, and I suspect that the Queen said to the Sussexes, what do you want to do? Do you want to be in or out? And they have chosen out, which is an extraordinary moment.

But it is also, as I trying to describe earlier, I think this is also a peace treaty. She's reaching out to Meghan, who is clearly particularly unhappy in her position, and she said the Queen said she was proud of Meghan. So this is about them all moving forward, the slate is clean, and trying to create a brand of positivity around this. And I think the Queen has managed that, and I think it is really interesting to see how William, Charles, and the Queen have come together and tried to be as constructive as possible to give Harry what he wants.

He isn't entirely giving up public money, arguably, because Prince Charles, as heir to the throne, has the right to the Duchy of Cornwall, which a huge estate, brings in millions of dollars a year. He funds Harry's current lifestyle largely from that. And Prince Charles has committed to continue paying that money to Harry. So there is a transition. Will he keep paying that? Who know? Will William keep paying that when he becomes heir to the throne will be another question as well. But for now, I think they've managed this transition.

WHITFIELD: Yes. I want to bring in Richard Quest. Richard, as we're talking about, the columns of the gain, in the columns of gains, the check marks, the column of losses, the check marks, and we're talking about the Queen, and Harry, and Meghan, and Prince Charles, but you can't talk about Harry without talking about Prince William.

And I wonder what Britons are thinking about their relationship, the severing of ties of Harry and Meghan and the royal family, what does that do to these two brothers, because you cannot leave the image of seeing these two brothers walking behind their mom's casket years ago. No matter what transpires in their lives, you always think about these two brothers like that.

RICHARD QUEST, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and I was on the streets of London and actually saw that with my own eyes, the brothers walking past the coffin of their late mother, walking behind the coffin of their late mother. This is a royal divorce in the sense of the official side between their duties as royals, and they are no longer going to be that.

They, as Max said, they had a choice, and they have chosen not to do it. And the Queen, to a certain extent, on the official side, played hardball. She has taken, she has said you're not using the titles, even though they are keeping the titles, which is interesting, because of course Diana lost her royal highness title when she divorced Charles. But they are keeping the titles, they just won't use them.

There will be restrictions on what they can do, obviously, and they can't represent the Queen. But the statement, as Max said, it is very clear that you're still part of the family. You can't divorce the family as such.

WHITFIELD: There was a tenderness in that statement coming from the Queen.

QUEST: Do you remember what the Queen said before Diana's funeral? She looked in the camera and said, what I say to you, I say as your Queen and a grandmother. Now, so we are getting another example of that here. There's constant reference by her majesty that there is a human family element to this that has to be dealt with.

[14:10:00]

But, but you don't stay on the throne for as many years as she has without recognizing -- the Queen is steeped in duty, and her duty requires her to protect the monarchy and the royal family, circle the wagons. So Harry, you wish to do that, go with God's blessings, but you can't have the cake and eat it. And I suspect they were hoping to have a lot more leeway in this.

It will be very messy, don't get me wrong. When they go to Canada, I have got visions of them ending up like the old duke and duchess of Windsor, former royals, straggling along as a-list celebrities with Paparazzi watching wherever they go, but not royal in the sense of actually having the title or indeed being senior working royals.

WHITFIELD: So Richard, I asked Max this about transition. While Prince Charles is going to help finance them during this transition until it's official and the deal is cut in terms of they're not receiving any royal money, the transition might be a little bit easier for her because she came from a world of celebrity and making money, and being kind of an ordinary citizen in a celebrity kind of fashion, whereas he has only known what it is to be a royal, and now he has to transition. Do you see that the transition for him is going to be far more complex, difficult, come with pains, greater than what she might endure?

QUEST: I think that will be a very difficult element to the transition when it comes to no longer having his military responsibilities. It will suddenly dawn on him that, yes, you can have -- the Queen has said they can continue with their private patronages, so the work that the duchess, Meghan, might do with women's centers, for example, that can all continue. The work that Harry does with the Invictus Games, that indeed will continue.

But there will be this anomalous position. They're still going to get money from Prince Charles. They will have to work out, at the end of the day, if they're going to be spending part of their time in Britain, part of their time in Canada, who is paying for those business or first-class airline ticks across the Atlantic? It will have to be Charles' money. It will have to be private money. It may even be money that Harry has that his mother left him. Of course, there were millions there. It could be Meghan's money from when she was a working actress. She may go back to that in full time.

But fundamentally, the taxpayer in Canada and the taxpayer in the United Kingdom will be saying, we are not footing the bill. And that is something the Queen and the royal family will be very careful to respect.

WHITFIELD: Wow, and Max, do you think, even though Harry and Meghan, you know, I guess really started this the ball rolling, they wanted independence, they wanted freedom, is it your feeling that Harry will be thinking, or maybe even now is thinking about all that he has just gained, or is he digesting this with all that he may have lost in terms of his departure of the royal family?

FOSTER: I think he feels utterly liberated. He has always felt so constrained by the palace system. He's always lived slightly in the shadow of his brother. I think he's utterly in love with Meghan. He is thrilled to be a father. He is doing it in Canada, which is a country he loves and just being himself.

All he wants is some anonymity. I spent some time in Afghanistan, he served in Afghanistan and I spent some time at the base there where he was, and you see him in the military. And he looks, Richard was talking about how important his titles are to him, and it is because he respects his mother, he is the head of the armed services. It is also that in the military he was able to be himself, and to have some mates who spoke to him in a normal way. It wasn't reverential. And most importantly wouldn't share the conversations.

Where I have even seen Harry most upset in the past is when a story is leaked which is true, and he gets so upset about that. That sort of compromise he really, really struggles with, which is why he often has issues with what is in the papers as I was describing earlier on.

Right now, he is able to be himself, and he's able to argue that he deserves his private life. He has always made the argument that he has a right to a private life despite being a public figure. And the tabloids argued against that, because he received public money. Now he has a right of a private life and he can handle the media in whatever way he likes, and there are members of the media who he likes and publications he likes, and there are members who he doesn't like, and he's now only going to work with the ones he does like and he is going to collaborate with them as opposed to deliver stories as he has been doing in the past.

[14:15:08]

I think this is a huge moment for him. And there is a really interesting moment when the interesting moment when the duchess first carried out her public engagements with Harry, and I saw a real change in him. He will talk to you about how he is very uncomfortable walking into a room of people he doesn't know, he is incredibly uncomfortable public speaking, which doesn't come across at all, because he is one of the best public speakers and he is one of the best people in a room full of people he doesn't know. But he is actually incredibly uncomfortable in those situations.

And the duchess, who is an actress, who uses those skills brilliantly, is comfortable in those situations. And there is a bit of a narrative building early on which I very much argued against which was that the duchess was storming into these engagements and taking over them. Actually, that wasn't the case at all. It was Harry feeling really comfortable with the fact that someone else was taking a lead in those situations and he could just be himself.

WHITFIELD: Yes, you used the word earlier, liberated.

FOSTER: Where he can have some anonymity and she becomes the star. I think actually that's his nirvana, really, if he can rebuild those relationships with his own family, of course.

WHITFIELD: Max Foster, Richard Quest, we're going to talk some more about this. Thank you so much for now. We're going to take a short break, but first, just a reminder that tonight on CNN, a special report that we've got for you, Alisyn Camerota hosting it, "The Royal Revolution, Harry and Meghan," tonight at 9:00 p.m. And of course we'll be right back with much more on this breaking news of what Richard was saying is really a royal divorce.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:53]

WHITFIELD: Breaking news out of London. The duke and duchess of Sussex are no longer working members of the family. Queen Elizabeth releasing a statement saying in part, quote, "I recognize the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life. It is my whole family's hope that today's agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life."

CNN Royal Commentator, Victoria Arbiter is joining me right now. And Victoria, even preceding that statement coming from the Queen, and our Richard Quest really reminded us early on, that this statement is coming from her majesty, really the grandmother, when she says, "Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together, we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family.

Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family." That is a remarkable statement, Victoria, but then making it very clear that they will no longer be working members of the royal family.

VICTORIA ARBITER, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: This is a very personal statement, yes, a bit striking when we see it coming from the Queen. Of course, this is an institution that is dripping in formality tradition and precedent. So to see her speaking quite so a stark reminder that, yes, she is having to act as a head of state, but she's also acting as a grandmother, and she's being very concerned for the well-being of her grandson, and by extension his wife and young baby.

So this is probably the most personal way we've ever heard from the Queen, but it was imperative that she find a solution here that didn't just accommodate the Sussexes wishes, as much as me wanted to do so. She had to find a solution that was acceptable to the British public, and one that wouldn't cause any long-term damage to the monarchy. Now, the has monarchy survived well over 1,000 years, it will survive this as well, just as the Sussexes will. But it is clearly a historic moment in terms of laying the groundwork for future royals.

WHITFIELD: So it's interesting, Victoria, the statement speaks to kind of the motivation and this is the result, but it doesn't spell out the specifications, but our reporting has, that they would leave their royal highness, they would no longer be addressed that way, that they would have to repay moneys spent on the renovations of the cottage in which they were living.

They will no longer receive royal money, and he will have to depart from his military positions, which is something that was really important to him. And no longer would he also be doing work, I guess, on behalf of the royal family as a youth ambassador.

So in your view, how significant are these, I guess, extractions from their royal duties? And how much of a change is this going to be for Harry, and how much of a change perhaps for Meghan, even though it has only been two years that she's been part of the royal family, but how great of a departure are you seeing these changes in their lives?

ARBITER: It is quite the dramatic departure, actually. Harry and Meghan, based on the website with the details the released last week upon publication of the newspaper story of their plans, they very much hoped to remain working royals. It has sort of been billed as this half-in, half-out type of royal.

There is no, there's just no time that such a role has been successful. In 1999 when Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones married, both of them had civilian jobs, for want of a better word. Sophie was running a very successful public relations firm. Edward was working for a television product company. It all came tumbling down within a year, two years max because there were accusations of them cashing in on the royal status, using their royal connections to attract new business. That's where it starts to get incredibly complicated. So the half-in, half-out model, optimistic as it sounded, was never really going to work.

[14:25:00]

So what we have reached here is quite a significant compromise to be stepping down entirely from their royal duties. I think that goes against what Harry and Meghan had hoped to do. But for the monarchy, this is the cleanest solution. They can't be members of the family that are taking on commercial work in an effort to be financially independent because that is where these accusation of cashing in on Brand Windsor start coming up.

So I think probably for Harry more so, there will be elements of this that are a little disappointing. Really, I think in terms of his military roles, Harry is a very proud ex-servicemen. He has done tremendous work on behalf of veterans. He has really fought for their rights. So I think really stepping back from the ceremonial military roles will be the most disappointing for him.

WHITFIELD: And I wonder, Victoria, will Britons be looking at this as a significant milestone, this arrangement, or will they be looking at it as something of a mistake?

ARBITER: I think Harry and Meghan have had largely -- of course you're never going to please everyone, but they have largely had the support of the British public. People have said yes, if you're not happy, step back. We live in a very different time. Deference is no longer what it was, and people understand that just because you're a member of the royal family you shouldn't be owned by the British public. So I think they've got the public support.

But I think this statement also shows that the Queen has really strived to find an acceptable solution to the British public. So the fact that the Sussexes are going to repay the sovereign grant fund to their cottage and then subsequently going to pay commercial rent on their cottage, it is those ways, those are the elements that are to appease the public.

WHITFIELD: All right, Victoria Arbiter, and perhaps the traditionalist, her majesty, has also demonstrated that she is also very modern.

And we're going to have much more on this breaking news on Harry and Meghan in a moment. But first, President Trump's impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate begins on Tuesday, and already a flood of new evidence from indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, we'll break it all down for you right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:31:34]

WHITFIELD: Welcome back. Right now, new evidence coming forward as Democrats try to make the case to impeach President Trump. New documents and photos released last night show more proof of indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas meeting with President Trump. This latest new evidence is the third release this week showing Parnas in close connection with the president, or his family, a connection President Trump has strongly denied.

This as more documents released last night show new text messages about the believed surveillance of former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Those texts reveal contacts between Parnas and some of President Trump's fiercest supporters, including an aide for the House Intelligence Committee's Ranking Member Congressman Devin Nunes.

Meanwhile, only three hours remaining now for House managers to file their impeachment brief on Capitol Hill, which lays out the facts, the evidence, legal arguments members plan to present as the Senate trial starts next week. The president then must respond to the secretary of the Senate by 6:00 tonight.

Certainly, a lot to break down. Joining me right now, one of the House managers during President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr.

Thanks so much. Good to see you.

BOB BARR, FORMER GOP HOUSE MANAGER FOR CLINTON IMPEACHMENT: A lot happening. Great to be here.

WHITFIELD: A lot. Are you reliving all of this since you were one of the House managers? Do you feel like this is a very similar path that these House managers are about to take?

BARR: It is sort of deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra was said to have said. But there are a lot of differences. Every impeachment, despite the fact that it is easy to sort of lump them all together and say, well, this is what we did last time and we need to do the same thing, they are very, very different.

WHITFIELD: How do you see the differences? Because Mitch McConnell has said he is using the framework of the impeachment of Bill Clinton, that's what he wants to see play out here. But you see real differences in the impeachments?

BARR: The primary difference I think goes back to what the House put together. What the House alleges in the two Articles of Impeachment are not crimes. And I read the Constitution the way a lot of lawyers do, including Alan Dershowitz, some lawyers disagree, certainly, but I read the Constitution to require that impeachment and removal of office has to have not just a crime, but a high crime, a serious crime.

WHITFIELD: So asking a foreign government to dig up dirt or to interfere in a U.S. election, upcoming U.S. election, many have argued that is an FEC violation because there is gain from that. You don't see that, you don't see that as a high crime? Where some scholars and law experts are arguing that is a high crime.

BARR: The way you cast it, yes, it certainly sounds bad the way you cast it. But it can be characterized a lot of different ways. The president says, and those supporters of the president say the president wasn't asking a foreign leader to dig up dirt on a political opponent. He was asking them to inquire into whether or not a government that was about to receive a lot of U.S. aid was corrupt in the sense that it had conspired with a former U.S. official. So that is very different.

WHITFIELD: But it was a favor, though, that was the phone call, it was a favor, it wasn't looking into the corruption of the Ukrainian government?

BARR: Well, that's the link. The president says that was the link. You may say it is something different.

WHITFIELD: OK.

[14:35:00]

BARR: But notwithstanding that, if in fact, the House believes, or believed that the president, in doing that, had committed a crime, then that should have been an element of the impeachment articles. They didn't do that.

WHITFIELD: So the articles of obstruction, accusing the articles of withholding evidence, documents, the opportunity for people who have been subpoenaed to appear, that is obstruction of Congress, abuse of power, involving, asking a foreign government to involve itself, in the U.S. elections, that is not a high crime and misdemeanor in your view, and those are not impeachable offenses?

BARR: Absolutely. They're not crimes. If in fact, the House here again, believed that the president had provided a quid pro quo, or demanded a quid pro quo, if they believe that he violated federal election laws, which are very vague on that particular point, then why didn't they allege that, set out proof of it, and include that in the Article of Impeachment? They elected not to.

WHITFIELD: OK, so Mitch McConnell has said he does not want to hear from witnesses. There has been new reporting, there have been witnesses, John Bolton, former NSA, who has said he is willing to testify, things have happened in the last three weeks since the House voted to impeach. What is the best argument as to why the Senate majority leader should not incorporate those elements when all of the senators, 100 senators, have sworn and taken an oath for a fair, impartial trial? Wouldn't involving those things, evidence and witnesses, be part of a fair impartial trial?

BARR: In a traditional sense, the answer to your question would be yes. But the Senate sits as a trial not in the same sense that a petit jury would sit in a trial. If the only thing constitutionally, and according to precedent, that the Senate can do, its only responsibility is to take the Articles of Impeachment and make its judgment as to whether or not those articles that the House sent over warrant removing the president. That's the only element of the problem that should be before the Senate. WHITFIELD: Except even before that, as a sworn member of Congress or

the Senate, you were swearing to uphold the Constitution, and one of your largest roles as a co-equal branch of government is checks and balances, to check, make sure the executive branch is also upholding the Constitution. So --

BARR: Sure. But the Senate's role does not come into play until the House sends it Articles of Impeachment, and those Articles of Impeachment is the entire focus, should be constitutionally, of what the Senate looks at. If the House believes there is something more, then they need to go back to work and send over another article.

WHITFIELD: Congressman Barr, good to see you.

BARR: Always a pleasure.

WHITFIELD: Thank you so much.

BARR: Yes, ma'am.

WHITFIELD: We are also following breaking news of the royal family. You're following this as well, right?

BARR: Absolutely.

WHITFIELD: OK, you have heard, everybody has heard by now that Harry and Meghan and Archie are no longer working members of the royal family. An agreement has been made between them and her majesty. More on that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:42:32]

WHITFIELD: Back to our breaking news out of London. Buckingham Palace finalizing the royal split and announcing that Harry and Meghan and Archie, are no longer working members of the royal family. Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams joining me right now. So Richard, what do you make of this news?

RICHARD FITZWILLIAMS, ROYAL COMMENTATOR: Well, it seems to me an indication, I have to say that a lot of speculation has occurred about this, that you cannot be a sort of royal part of the time and, as it were, a non-royal FOR part of the time. It had been expected, I think, that they would continue royal duties, and it does seem to have been thought that this simply wouldn't be practical because there is endorsements. The press have been watching for anything that would sort inappropriate.

It's very sad if you consider it is less than two years since their marriage, and with so many opportunities, I thought that they were the dynamic duo following as senior royals in Diana's footsteps, and achieving a global brand that would be absolutely extraordinary, and quite unique across the commonwealth. But there is no question the focus of this, the fact that they won't be using their titles, that is, I would say fairly symbolic of royal displeasure, of the way this was handled.

I would also mention the way the Queen opens this about many months of conversations and more recent discussions, obviously, they've been considering this for a long time, but the way it was handled was clearly, as you know, highly controversial.

WHITFIELD: Right. A lot of people felt like it was just, maybe two weeks ago, now, where it was a week after they sent out on Instagram a statement, people felt like they were hearing about it for the first time. But you're right, her majesty in her statement says "Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I'm pleased that together, we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson, and his family. Harry, Meghan, and Archie, will always be much loved members of my family."

So you, moments ago, you said it's sad. What do you see sad in this? Tell me what provoked you to say that?

[14:45:00]

FITZWILLIAMS: Well, I think that Harry has been brought up to be a member, a senior member of the royal family, and I think that it is very much his calling, in various ways. I think also the fact that Meghan was rather like a meteor. She was an American divorcee, biracial, former actress, someone I saw as a modernizer of the royals and also would have enormous appeal throughout the commonwealth, where 60 percent of people are under 30, for example.

But very, very clearly, the pressures of the royal life, what they perceive as pressure. You can see in the TV documentary, after their triumphal South African visit to the last day when they had that attack on the press, the facts were that they seemed to brilliant at it. But nonetheless, they were feeling, it was getting to them, Meghan was surviving, not thriving, to use her phrase.

Harry was confirming differences with William. All of this has been over somewhat toxic in the last two months, with Andrew having to step down in disgrace after an interview which defies description.

WHITFIELD: And so Quickly, Richard, what does this do to the brothers, you think, Harry and William?

FITZWILLIAMS: There's been so much speculation about that. I think William is probably deeply hurt. I think that Harry also feels somewhat aggrieved. Probably, if you think about back to Diana's death and those two boys walking behind their mother's casket, and you think of the way the bond was forged between them over the years, it does seem very, very sad that, at least for the time being, things seem to be very strained.

WHITFIELD: Yes, Richard Fitzwilliams, thank you very much for your point of view, your perspective on things. Appreciate it.

Up next, quite the contrast, unity across the country as thousands of people march for women. We will go live to Los Angeles right after the break. But first, CNN's John Defterios has this week's global energy challenge.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN DEFTERIOS, CNN BUSINESS EMERGING MARKETS EDITOR: This iconic New York City skyline is set to change over the next 10 years. Under 2019's City Climate Mobilization Act, buildings larger than 25,000 square feet must slash emissions by 40 percent.

For over a century, success in New York was defined by how high you could build, or design. But in this modern age, value will be increasingly linked to energy efficiency in the buildings.

Once crowned the tallest skyscraper in the world, today the Empire State Building's green credentials are making headlines.

DANA SCHNEIDER, SENIOR VP DIRECTOR, ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY, EMPIRE REAL ESTATE TRUST: We did a huge deep energy retrofit in this building starting in 2009, and we publicized all of the work we did. We shared everything in the hopes that we would not only succeed in the Empire State Building, that we would motivate others to replicate what we had done.

DEFTERIOS: The building's trust and $550 million on initial energy upgrades. More than 6,000 windows were changed, insulated and optimized for natural light within three years. Energy efficiencies reached 40 percent. Annual cash savings hit $4.4 million. In light of the new act, it will have to do even more.

John Defterios, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[14:53:08]

WHITFIELD: Just in to CNN, the National Archives is now apologizing after it altered a picture depicting protests against President Trump in the 2017 Women's March. Here's the picture side by side. According to a report in the "Washington Post," the National Archives blurred signs that are critical of President Trump and maybe deemed inappropriate, that was a view of the archives.

You can see where the name "Trump" is distorted there. The National Archives tweeting just moments ago, "We have removed the current display and will replace it as soon as possible with the one that uses the unaltered image. We apologize and will immediately start a thorough review of our exhibit policies and procedures so that this does not happen again."

Today, thousands are gathering across the country for the fourth annual Women's March. The event first began in 2017 right after President Trump's inauguration. This was the scene in Denver a short time ago. CNN's Kyung Lah joining me now from Los Angeles. So what is the latest?

KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is the end of the march where the crux of all the speakers are gathering in this park to talk about specifically what to do moving forward. And this year, in 2020, if you take a look at some of the signs of this crowd, what they're looking forward to is November, 2020, voting.

And you were just talking about the National Archives and what they would have to do. If you take a look at this crowd, the baby Trump is floating. There are a significant number of signs that say that they are against Trump, and that it will be women who take him down in November of 2020. So a sense here of purpose this year, just as in 2018, Fredricka, there can be a distance made as long as they gather, unite, and take it to the ballot box. Fredricka?

[14:55:05]

WHITFIELD: Kyung Lah in Los Angeles, thank you so much.

All right, it is the family split being heard around the world. Just a short time ago, we learned Harry and Meghan are giving up their royal titles. The announcement made by Queen Elizabeth herself, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)