As befits their status as post-royal royalty, Harry and Meghan this week announced plans for an exclusive sit-down interview with the queen of the celebrity chin-wag, Oprah Winfrey.
While details of the tete-a-tete remain vague, topics for discussion will almost certainly include the news that they are expecting for a second time and their Megxit exile from Planet Windsor.
They will also no doubt have an opportunity to speak about the privileges and responsibilities of their position, and to reaffirm their love for one another and their desire to bring good to the world.
Oprah will beam beatifically. Harry and Meghan may possibly hold hands. They will almost certainly wax cute. Hearts will melt all over the world.
It is also possible to hazard a guess as to some of the topics that won't be up for discussion. Oprah is unlikely to ask if it is hypocritical of Harry and Meghan to express their wish for privacy while also building a career on their celebrity.
Nor will Harry be quizzed about how it felt to watch his mother, Diana, portrayed a naive, bullied young woman in series four of Netflix's The Crown. Or what he thought about that drama's depiction of his father, Prince Charles, as an egotistical lunk who treated Diana like a luxury chattel, to be used and then disposed of.
That's because it is simply unthinkable that Harry and Meghan would agree to an Oprah interrogation without first setting ground rules.
The March 7 interview - to be aired on CBS in the United States - has been framed as a tell-all, but you can bet it's the Sussexes who have decided what will be told - and how.
There will be no 'gotcha' questions, because a) it's Harry and Meghan; and b) 'gotcha' questions aren't really a thing in an age when celebrities are all-powerful and the journalists scrutinising them far, far less so.
Is this necessarily a bad thing? News of Oprah's Harry and Meghan interview comes amid a backlash against David Letterman over his crude, cruel 2013 questioning of Lindsay Lohan, in a clip circulating anew on YouTube.
Because he is so much more powerful than Lohan, Letterman is free to take the interview wherever he pleases. And he does so - with toxic gusto.
"Now, aren't you supposed to be in rehab?" he says, ignoring attempts by Lohan to discuss her new film.
"What are they rehabbing? What is on their list? What are they going to work on when you walk through the door?"
Lohan smiles uncomfortably. The audience hoots and hollers.
The context in which Letterman's treatment of Lohan is being reappraised is, of course, Framing Britney Spears, the shocking New York Times documentary chronicling the decade-plus public humiliation of Spears.
The film is uncomfortable watching in all sorts of ways, especially if your name is Justin Timberlake.
However, in terms of celebrity interviews, what lands hardest is Diane Sawyer's torturous 2003 inquisition of Spears.
She asks the singer if she was responsible for the end of her fairytale romance with Timberlake (the rumour being that Britney cheated on him). Her "aggressive" sexuality is also brought up - and she is shown footage of a politician who says Spears is a bad example to girls and that, if she could, she would shoot Britney.
It's horrible. Did we really sit through that?
Rest assured this would not happen today. In a recent Rolling Stone interview, Dua Lipa was asked whether perceived beauty can help a pop star.
The question did not sit well with the singer, who later contacted the journalist to communicate her unease over being "short-changed" by the implication.
"I've been thinking about it almost every day, and I was just a little bit taken aback," Lipa explained.
"I've never really seen being pretty, or beautiful, as some kind of power. It's never been something that I identify with and - with no disrespect to you, obviously - I feel like I was a little bit short-changed in a way, because I don't feel like I've gotten to where I am because of that."
Lipa is a hugely powerful pop star and not someone you want taking offence at your line of inquiry. Certainly, in future interviews, many journalists may check themselves before asking a mildly probing question.
This is quite a change-up. As recently as a decade ago, editors expected a journalist to throw into their interview at least one mildly uncomfortable question.
Not something personal or offensive - the Letterman/Sawyer line of grilling has never been acceptable, but if the actor, or pop star, or whoever, had made a controversial statement in the past, or had done something off-brand, or even offensive, it was fair game to put it to them. Nowadays, journalists might wonder if it's worth the trouble. The potential for blowback is too much. Journalists are nowadays often their own 'brand' - for good or ill - and the sort of institutional backing that they could have availed of in the past often simply doesn't exist anymore. They're on their own. It's their neck that is on the line.
In such circumstances, would you want to put yours on the chopping block?
The question is whether this is a negative thing. In the world of entertainment and celebrity journalism, perhaps it's fine that reporters only lob softballs nowadays. It makes life easier for them - and easier for the celeb. Editors don't breathe down writers' necks as they would have in the past. And readers have much less of an appetite for red meat.
The world, in other words, is cuddlier. Who is to say that's an unfortunate turn of events? Perhaps we have passed the era of spiky interrogators, such as the great Lynn Barber, who built her career out of chucking awkward questions at celebs, but who was dropped by the Sunday Times in 2018.
None of this obviously applies to Oprah, who is all-powerful and can get away with asking whatever she wants. On the other hand, she wants to woo the Sussexes. And, as a celebrity herself, she understands these new ground rules.
The agenda is set by the celeb. The journalist's job here is to serve as a glorified echo chamber. Harry and Meghan will say whatever they want and Oprah will nod and ask helpful follow-up questions. She will not be required to pin them to their collars.
The interview will be a transaction - Harry and Meghan get publicity, CBS gets ratings - rather than the traditional interrogation. It's just one more way in which the world has changed.
Whether for better or worse is probably too early to judge.