The Megyn Kelly Show - 20221101_medias-october-surprise-and-meghans-relationship-w

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

Nov. 1, 2022 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:35:48

20221101_medias-october-surprise-and-meghans-relationship-w

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Voters Worry About Crime 00:15:14
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.
	We'll give you an update a little later on how ours went.
	It was hilarious.
	Today on the show, we've got a best-selling royal biographer whose new book dives into the breakdown of Charles's marriage with Diana, his affair with Camilla, and how Charles really feels about Megan Markle.
	This, as Ms. Markle plays the race card.
	We'll get to that.
	But first, we are learning new details on the Paul Pelosi attack and the man expected to be formally arraigned today on charges of attempted murder and more.
	Turns out not only was he mentally ill, he was also apparently in this country illegally.
	And as you know, California is a sanctuary state.
	Great place for him to choose.
	Plus, a stunning new poll has just been released in the race for New York governor.
	I mean, honestly, if you don't live in New York, maybe you don't care about what happens to the New York governor, but this, if this happens, it is a huge political earthquake.
	It tells you everything you need to know about the mood in the country when it comes to these two parties.
	This is the first time we have seen the Republican Lee Zeldin in the lead.
	A Republican for New York.
	New York State.
	All the statewide elections are driven by what happens in New York City, which is teeming with Democrats.
	Or is it?
	Joining me now, Emily Jashinsky, culture editor for the Federalist and co-host of the podcast, Counterpoints with Ryan Grimm, and Eliana Johnson, editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon, co-host of the podcast, Inc. Stained Wretches, with Chris Steierwalt.
	It's the day of the EJs.
	Ladies, welcome back.
	Happy November.
	Yeah, happy November.
	I love November.
	My birthday's in November, Thanksgiving's in November.
	It's always like, especially with global warming, it's gotten a lot more pleasant weather-wise.
	I really love it.
	By the way, on the subject of global warming and the environment, I just want to make a mention of Michael Schellenberger, who tweeted out today: stop recycling plastic.
	Stop it.
	It winds up not getting recycled.
	If we put it in the trash, it'll get burned.
	It'll get taken care of at the landfill.
	If we put it in the recycling bin, it winds up in the ocean.
	So he's like, keep recycling, you know, do your tin, dear paper, your cans, your glass, but do not put plastic in the recycling bin anymore.
	There you go.
	There's your public service announcement for November.
	Okay, let's talk about New York just because that was in the lead.
	And I'm just like, I can't believe it.
	50 of my 51 years, pretty much, a couple of jaunts to Chicago, I've lived in New York State, had a couple of Republican governors, but it's so rare, and especially in today's day and age, it's just like it doesn't seem possible.
	She was plus 19 over him in August.
	That wasn't that long ago.
	It's only November 1.
	In August, she was 19 points up over the Republican challenger, Lee Zeldin.
	And now, according to Trafalgar, he's leading her.
	It's within the margin of error, but he's at 48.4.
	She's at 47.6.
	This as Kathy Hochul, who was the governor nobody chose. took over after Andrew Cuomo was ousted, is telling people that America's rising fear about crime has been manufactured by master manipulators in a national conspiracy.
	Are all the people being shoved on the subway tracks part of the national conspiracy?
	Are the Republicans doing that just to make her look bad?
	Like, what is she possibly saying?
	How out of touch she is.
	And so many of these Democrats who are ignoring the real crime problem, the real inflation problem, and so on are seven or plus 19 down to minus one.
	Eliana, I'll start with you.
	What do you make of it?
	Republicans are competing in places that they haven't been competitive for decades.
	Megan, I'm going to age myself here, but I was in college in the 2004 election.
	And I remember that when George W. Bush was reelected, I went to college on the East Coast.
	And I remember people saying, the map of the country looks like all the crazy people are pushing all the sane people into the ocean because middle America was red and the coasts were blue.
	And what we're seeing in 2022 is Republicans are competitive in places like New York and Oregon and Washington State.
	The East Coast and the West Coast are becoming competitive because cities like New York City and Portland, the problems of crime and inflation are making Republicans competitive.
	And Democrats have sat on their laurels.
	And as you mentioned, Kathy Hochl's responses in those debates, they are simply not compelling to people.
	And I think regardless of what happens in this New York governor's race, if Lee Zeldon wins by one or loses by one, these are races that have never been competitive and should never have been competitive.
	And this is a real wake-up call, I think, for Democrats.
	But it comes awfully late.
	You know, it's like they should have been awake a long time ago and not saying things like the crime problem is a manufactured crisis and some sort of conspiracy.
	Like if you look at what actual voters are saying, they're worried about crime.
	They're worried about inflation.
	Emily, the Wall Street Journal just had a poll and a report on the poll released today.
	Here's the headline.
	Voters are giving Republicans a late boost in support just ahead of the midterms as pessimism about the economy and the direction of the country jump to their highest levels of the year.
	They suggest abortion rights are far less important than they were just this past summer.
	And that whereas the GOP was down on the generic congressional ballot by three points to the Dems in August, they're now up to, there's been a five-point swing in the GOP's favor on generic congressional ballot.
	Only 19% of voters, this is all voters, say the economy is headed in the right direction.
	That's down 11 percentage points from August.
	So it's going in the wrong direction for the Dems.
	71% say the economy is on the wrong track.
	What do you make of it?
	I mean, Democrats don't have to be running like Kathy Hochul is.
	I mean, she's, I think, a uniquely bad candidate in some respects, but she doesn't have to be running on a campaign that ignores people's concerns.
	But because Democrats have sort of attached themselves to this ideology and they, in some respects, have defended on it, in other respects, have endorsed and encouraged it, especially in big cities like New York, like Los Angeles, like Portland.
	They can't go back from it.
	And that's the real problem for them.
	It's like Kathy Hochul could be a very different candidate right now.
	She could have neutralized what Lee Zeldon was talking about, but they can't.
	So like in one sense, like, yes, you should be doing this.
	Like, this is bad politics.
	But in the other sense, you've been sort of encouraging and winking at in some ways, just explicitly embracing this ideology for years.
	And I think what's happening is that after Labor Day, what we see is the money goes into these races.
	And that means the real message that both candidates are running on congeals.
	And you see exactly what the sort of Zeldon pitches, what the Hochul pitches and other races too.
	And when that's pitted against each other and the money comes into those races, voters have decided they don't want what Democrats are selling.
	And I really think that's what we've seen over the last couple of months.
	She says, I mean, remember at that debate she had with Lee Zeldon last week and he was talking about crime.
	And he himself has been a victim of crime.
	He was attacked by a knife-wielding man on a stage.
	His two kids were home doing their homework and a shooting happened right outside of their Long Island home.
	He wasn't there.
	I mean, this is scary.
	And he's been talking about it out on the campaign trail.
	Many New Yorkers have been personally affected by crime in some way.
	They can no longer take the subway.
	They no longer feel safe walking in Times Square.
	They don't feel safe walking down the streets of New York City in the evening before nightfall.
	I mean, things that we used to do really without question during, say, the Giuliani Bloomberg years.
	Never mind de Blasio, that's who let New York go to hell.
	But so she looks at everybody and says now on the heels of, I don't know why you care so much, she says to Lee Zelda about crime.
	I don't know why you care so much.
	Now she's out there saying this is a, this, this, the rising fear about crime was manufactured by master manipulators in a national conspiracy.
	And the journal has this article in which, just by one example, they cite Ashley Smith, a supermarket worker in Brooklyn, saying crime is at the top of her mind this year, in addition to the economy.
	She's a self-described liberal.
	She's still leaning toward Hochul, but she cares a lot about crime.
	She's being told by this woman, it's a conspiracy not to listen.
	Meanwhile, the journal goes on to say the GOP has seen a shift, quoting here, in its favor among several voter groups, including Latino voters and women, and particularly white suburban women.
	That group, which the pollster said makes up 20% of the electorate, shifted 26 percentage points away from Democrats since the journal's August poll and now favors the GOP by 15 percentage points.
	They lost white suburban women in two months, Eliana, as inflation numbers shot up.
	GOP got on message when it came to crime, found its footing on abortion just in time for election day.
	And recall that this is the group, the same group, white suburban women, that shifted away from Trump in 2018 and produced devastating losses for Republicans.
	They shifted for the Democrats.
	That hurt Republicans four years ago.
	It is now going to benefit them greatly.
	I mean, the lesson for Democrats is that you cannot tell voters the things that they are seeing, living, experiencing in their day-to-day lives, like crime and inflation, are not real.
	And you cannot be indifferent toward those concerns.
	And you cannot tell them that an issue like abortion trumps those concerns.
	They have got to have a message on those two issues, crime and inflation, and they simply don't.
	And now, unfortunately, the horse is out of the barn and it is too late.
	It's, I mean, Tom Bevin of Real Clear Politics called this absolutely stunning movement among white suburban women.
	They lost them.
	The January 6th thing did not do it.
	The constant harping on Trump, the insurrection, the hearings did not do it.
	And in fact, just a bit of color in this poll, they asked about a hypothetical matchup in 2024 between Biden and Trump again, and both are tied.
	Each man draws 46%.
	In August, Biden was ahead by six percentage points.
	Even their standard go-to of Trump, Trump, but Trump isn't working.
	They need a new trick.
	And what they're saying to your points is that it's the inflation, that it's the economy.
	64% of poll respondents said inflation is rising and straining their finances.
	36% describe those strains as major, major.
	I just talked to my mom about this.
	She's on a fixed income.
	She's living off of her pension and her social security.
	Of course, I help her too.
	But on her fixed income, she's noticed a real reduction in the money that she has because her grocery bills are astronomical.
	Everyone's feeling it.
	Everyone's feeling it, Emily.
	Well, yeah.
	And again, to your point, Democrats can't deny that.
	And when they do deny that and they try to pivot to corporate profiteering or whatever it is, it makes it seem like they're completely out of touch with voters.
	And in some respects, that's because they are.
	I think it's one thing that people maybe underappreciate sometimes is the extent to which Democratic operatives and consultants, even the ones that work outside of the coasts, are in bubbles.
	They spend so much time on Twitter.
	They spend so much time in silos because they've sort of purged anybody with dissenting opinions to the point where like they really kind of believe their own stuff now.
	And that's like actually a very different thing from the way politics used to work.
	And maybe they'll get a wake-up call.
	That's actually why, you know, New York is perennially overcovered.
	But that's one of my top races to watch because it's sort of like what we saw maybe happen with the Gavin Newsome recall, like just getting Gavin Newsom to a recall.
	Obviously, he won pretty handily.
	This stuff takes time.
	Movement from voters takes time.
	The Oregon race, Drazen, her ad that she put out last week with Democrats saying, I'm voting for her.
	This is really powerful stuff.
	And it's not going to be like a light that flips overnight.
	But because Democrats are struggling, they're sort of locked in this ideological prison where they can't escape their bad messaging and they can't make voters feel like they're heard.
	It's just going to continue to chip away.
	It's going to continue to chip away down in the Rio Grande Valley with Hispanic voters, with black voters, if they don't turn it around.
	And all of the signs, the fact that you have somebody like Kathy Hochul, you know, alleged moderate running the campaign that she's running, all of the signs point to them not being able to really turn the Titanic around in time.
	Meanwhile, Arizona is one of the states that everybody is watching.
	And there was good news for the Republican in that race, Blake Masters, today, as the Libertarian candidate dropped out.
	And this guy was threatening to play spoiler, and he turned around and endorsed Blake Masters.
	So that's one of those super tight races in which Mark Kelly, a popular, well-liked Democrat married to Gabby Giffords, had been up.
	The real clear average today is Kelly up 2.4% over Blake Masters.
	But this guy is dropping out, which could change things significantly in the final race.
	So Eliana, you, in addition to all of your other talents and responsibilities, as I mentioned, you're the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon.
	So let me ask you a little bit about coverage in the New York Times of some of these races.
	My crack team pulled just a couple of interesting items.
	They made me laugh out loud.
	New poll is from the New York Times talking about some governor's races.
	New polling from the New York Times and Sienna College suggests a tight race for governor of Arizona.
	Now, switching from the Senate race to the governor race, this is the one in which Kerry Lake is running for governor of Arizona between, ready?
	Kerry Lake, a far-right election-denying Republican, and Katie Hobbs, the Democratic Secretary of State.
	Okay.
	Here's another one.
	The polling shows Republicans narrowly ahead in governor's races in Georgia and Nevada, while a Democrat, Josh Shapiro, has a solid lead in Pennsylvania over another far-right election denying Republican, Doug Mastriana.
	Can I tell you, this is something I've noticed lately about myself in some of the certain publications will be like right-wing talk show host Megan Kelly.
Election Denial Tactics 00:15:25
	I'm like, okay, first of all, I am an independent journalist.
	And though I sometimes opine with my opinion on politics, it doesn't make me a talk show host.
	They never do that to the left.
	They never say left-wing talk show host Chuck Todd, right?
	They don't do that.
	It's just journalists.
	Give me a break.
	I was just going to say, Megan, are there any candidates?
	We got to do the Nexus search.
	Are there any candidates the New York Times describes as left-wing, far-left-wing candidates?
	Or election deniers?
	I mean, did they deny the 2016 election?
	I would love to know.
	Good point.
	Did they describe Stacey Abrams that way?
	Election denier.
	Never, never.
	Or far left.
	It's absurd, right?
	I mean, this is an editorial choice.
	And it reminds me of the thing we had on Tom Cotton yesterday, Senator Tom Cotton.
	We were talking about his op-ed in the New York Times that got Jim Bennett fired because he had, he deigned to publish it and he was running the op-ed page.
	And Jim Bennett came out and said, this is one of my criticisms of the New York Times is they really want to be Mother Jones.
	They don't really want to be this sort of fair newspaper that's may lean left, but tries to include right-wing voices.
	They want to be Mother Jones.
	And those headlines prove it.
	Well, I think the critical thing there is they want to be Mother Jones, but they think that Mother Jones, like they think the content of Mother Jones is neutral.
	That's the big problem they have.
	Like they're still purporting to be the gatekeeper of what is objective and what is not.
	And if you want to run Mother Jones as Mother Jones, fine, absolutely.
	I mean, the Federalist is openly conservative.
	But if you want to pretend the Federalist or Mother Jones is the New York Times and all the news that's fit to print and just straight down the middle, neutral objective reality, then you're lying on a mass scale.
	And I feel like that's probably the biggest problem the media has at this point.
	Now, I want to get into the media and Paul Pelosi in one second, but before we leave hardcore politics, let's spend a minute on Herschel Walker.
	This is a fascinating dynamic, what's happening with him.
	They continue to sling the mud.
	It's like every week we have another Gloria Allred represented client with another allegation against Herschel for being a bad boyfriend, bad lover, in terms of, not in terms of the actual loving, but like I didn't mean to imply anything.
	I just mean not a good partner to the women in his life.
	Now there's another one who's come out, again, anonymous, defending her claim that Walker pressured her to have an abortion nearly three decades ago after a years-long extramarital relationship.
	She has not identified herself.
	She first made the claim during a news conference with Allred, reiterated in an on-camera interview with ABC News on Tuesday.
	Blah, He didn't want me to have the child.
	Every time a woman comes out, his poll numbers go up.
	I mean, that's what's happening.
	Like they're not laying a glove on him, net net.
	Maybe, maybe it was the debate.
	I don't know what's happening because my takeaway in watching this dynamic is pretty soon these Democrats are going to be like, stop it.
	No more women.
	Put them away.
	This is only helping him.
	This tactic is backfiring.
	What do you guys think?
	Well, Herschel Walker won the debate against Raphael Warnock, and there was some grudging acknowledgement of that from the mainstream media.
	And the second thing is, you know, the Washington Free Beacon and our reporter, Andrew Kerr, had a fantastic report about the apartment building that Raphael Warnock's Church secretly owns that has evicted tenants and tried to evict dozens more over the COVID pandemic as Warnock himself takes, you know, a $7,400 a month housing stipend.
	And that story has made its way into the local press, even though the national mainstream media has tried to poo-poo it and to exonerate him.
	And I think these things have made a dent.
	The mainstream media, like with inflation and like with crime, have done their best to poo-poo these issues.
	But voters aren't stupid.
	You know, voters understand what the real issues are.
	And voters, when they watch debates and read local news, are actually able to assess the candidates, I think, on the merits.
	They know.
	None of these things making a difference.
	And as Chuck Schumer said to Joe Biden a couple of days ago, Georgia's not going in the right direction for the Democrats.
	And it's not just a small lead that Brian Kemp has over Stacey Abrams down there.
	It's a big lead.
	And that's one of the reasons why Herschel Walker is probably going to win in the Senate race.
	In any event, okay.
	So let's move on to Paul Pelosi, which is what, I mean, is everybody, everybody talking about this in your circle?
	Like everybody's asking me about this case, right?
	Like Paul Pelosi, like the conspiracy theories and the blowback against the press and the blowback against Republicans that the Democrats, I think Miranda Devine has it.
	She summed it up perfectly at the New York Post.
	This, the Democrats are trying to make this into their October surprise.
	They're trying to make this into the thing that's going to change the whole midterm election.
	This lunatic guy who believed in fairies and slept on a school bus and ran around naked with some woman who's a child molester.
	This guy we're supposed to believe is like a Donald Trump operative or a Jesse Waters operative.
	That's what Gavin Newsom's blaming in on Jesse Waters of Fox News.
	And for that reason, you're supposed to vote Democrat in the upcoming election.
	But will it work?
	I don't know, Emily.
	Is this the kind of thing that's going to change any of those independent fence sitters whose votes are still up for grabs?
	I think it's exactly what you said earlier about how they tried.
	They held another primetime January 6th hearing.
	They drew it out into the fall and CBS had a poll, I believe it was CBS, that asked people, what's a higher priority?
	Democracy or a strong economy, functioning democracy or a strong economy?
	That is such an interesting question to ask because it's a huge tell, right?
	They're basically saying what we consider a functioning economy has nothing to do with the way that you feed your family.
	And the more that they push this, push this, push this, this question of the democracy is hanging by a thread and people go about their daily lives.
	And what's hanging by a thread is their bank accounts, their ability to, you know, carpool for soccer and feel comfortable enough to take their kids out to dinner and live by their budget, et cetera, et cetera.
	When you're pushing this kind of thing, I mean, I think Miranda's totally right.
	That's what they're doing.
	They see this as something to latch on to and it's not going to work, but they don't learn that.
	They just don't learn.
	That's why they're taken aback by the fact that Herschel Walker is now doing very well in Georgia.
	Again, because the operatives and consultant class are in these impenetrable silos now.
	They have no idea how this stuff is actually playing out with actual voters.
	I have to say, I still have more questions than answers in this whole attack.
	I don't know what actually happened there.
	Here's the part I find most suspicious, most suspicious, okay?
	This is from the FBI report.
	At 2.31 a.m., San Francisco PD responded to the Pelosi residents in California and knocked on the front door.
	When the door was opened, Paul Pelosi and DePape were both holding a hammer with one hand.
	Try to picture this.
	They're both holding the hammer with one hand.
	And DePape had his other hand holding onto Pelosi's forearm.
	Pelosi greeted the officers.
	What?
	What's happening?
	Like, I don't understand.
	Did they ring the door?
	They knocked.
	They knocked.
	So they get a distress call from Paul Pelosi in a bathroom.
	And then they get there and they gently knock on the door.
	Look, I'm sorry, but what the F?
	Go in.
	You got a distress call that he's being attacked, right?
	Get in there.
	So they.
	And why does he come out of the bathroom?
	There's an attacker in his house.
	Why does he come out of the bathroom?
	Why did he come out of the bathroom?
	Why didn't he just stay in the bathroom?
	So then they meander over to the front door, jointly holding a hammer.
	This is the FBI report.
	They open the door and the police are there.
	And the FBI says the officers asked them, what's going on?
	What's going on?
	DePape responded, everything's good.
	Everything was good.
	Officers then asked Pelosi and DePape to drop the hammer.
	What is happening?
	DePape pulled the hammer from Pelosi's hand and swung the hammer, striking Pelosi in the head.
	Then they say, then officers immediately went inside.
	Wait a minute.
	You open the door and you've gotten a distress call and the two men are holding the hammer and one of them is married to the speaker of the house and you just stand there, say, what's up?
	Everything good?
	And then you let this other guy swing a hammer, an 82-year-old to the point where he falls on the ground now and requires emergency surgery.
	Something's wrong.
	Someone did something wrong.
	Some protocol wasn't followed.
	I'm sorry, but this isn't right.
	I don't know what's happening, but I'm telling you, like I said yesterday, something smells bad about this whole thing.
	Then they go on, they recover zip ties in Pelosi's bedroom and in the hallway near the front door, they found his backpack, found among other things, a roll of tape, white rope, one hammer, one pair of rubber and cloth gloves and a journal.
	Pelosi told him he'd never seen DePape before.
	And DePape stated that he pulled the hammer away from Pelosi and swung it toward Pelosi and that it was Pelosi's actions that resulted in Pelosi taking the punishment that I guess this guy believed he deserved.
	Now the press continues its narrative that this is all the fault of the GOP.
	And this, despite the fact that DePape gives a statement to the police in which he acknowledges that one of his main problems while in this San Francisco house is he was super, super sleepy, ladies.
	He wanted to go night night.
	So he got in there and said he wanted to tie up Paul Pelosi so that he could go night night as he was tired from having had to carry a backpack in the Pelosi residence.
	Damn you, Jesse Waters, you mofo.
	This is what he said.
	This is what the suspect said.
	I was super tired.
	And he started taking out the twist ties so that he could restrain Paul Pelosi.
	They wound up going back into the bedroom while talking with each other.
	Pelosi went to the bathroom where he grabbed a phone.
	He felt like Pelosi's actions compelled him, DePape, to respond.
	And he remembered thinking there was no way the police were going to forget about that phone call, but he couldn't leave because much like the American founding fathers with the British, he was fighting against tyranny without the options of surrender, but he did need that nap.
	So in any event, this is the man that now the entire left-wing press wants us to believe was motivated by GOP rhetoric.
	I give you, as an example, Gavin Newsom, SAT1.
	I've seen the dehumanization of Nancy Pelosi.
	I don't think anyone's been dehumanized like she has consistently.
	I mean, I watched this one guy, was it Jesse Waters or something on Fox News?
	What he's been saying about Paul Pelosi the last five, six months, mocking him consistently.
	Don't tell me that's not aiding and betting all this.
	Of course it is.
	Just look online.
	Look at the sewage that is online that they amplify on these networks and in social media to dehumanize people like Nancy Pelosi and other political leaders.
	I know what over the last three years has come in my inbox.
	Trust me, you don't because I'm not sharing it.
	I don't even share it with my wife.
	I got four kids.
	So I know a little bit about this.
	I mean, it wasn't just a recall against me.
	It was surround sound in every way, shape, or form.
	This is something's different here.
	I'm sure you ladies have never been the subject of vitriol from the left, from his side of the aisle.
	It's just Gavin Newsom and Nancy Pelosi.
	Pelosi wrongly attacked by people like Jesse Waters.
	By the way, his attacks, according to Gavin Newsom, weren't even on Nancy Pelosi.
	They were on Paul Pelosi.
	And the whole FBI and crime file says this was about Nancy.
	Megan, you mentioned Democrats trying to manufacture an October surprise out of this.
	And I don't blame Democrats for grasping at straws given their political position right now.
	I do blame the media for trying to manufacture an October surprise out of this.
	And that is exactly what's happening.
	You know, I don't think there's any figure over the past five or six years who's been more demonized in our politics than Brett Kavanaugh.
	And when somebody did try to assassinate him, I don't recall the articles that said Kavanaugh assassination attempt follows years of demonizations by Democratic politicians.
	I didn't read that in the New York Times.
	I didn't see Republican politicians on the air giving interviews to Major Garrett, blaming Democrats for that.
	I don't recall surround sound in the media every morning newsletter, you know, blaming Democrats for the attack.
	You know, I don't remember that.
	And by the way, like, I don't think it's true.
	I don't think it's true that Democrats were to blame for the attack on Kavanaugh.
	And I don't think it's true that Republicans are to blame for the attack on Pelosi because this guy, you know, I didn't mean to make light of it by laughing at your description.
	He's obviously a severe, severely mentally ill, as is the man who attacked Kavanaugh.
	You know, our politics are not to blame for this.
	The problem is that these guys are obviously mentally ill.
	I don't blame Democrats for the purported attempt or the guy wanting to kill Brett Kavanaugh.
	I blame the Supreme Court leaker.
	That's why I blame.
	That person had no business releasing that thing at a time when the justices weren't prepared, didn't have adequate security at home, and weren't ready.
	There's a reason they announced the decisions in the order that they do.
	Whoever that person was, Democrat, Republican, we still have no idea.
	That's the person who I blame for incentivizing this lunatic to go to Brett Kavanaugh's house and the man himself.
	But I do think in that case, it was a little different than this one because you can point to one specific person who endangered the life of a justice by releasing a very controversial decision that was very foreseeable could lead to potential problems for that justice.
	I mean, that's just the way the country works.
	This is a different scenario altogether.
	And, you know, to the point Jesse Waters made last night and the one I just made, Jesse Waters' reporting was on Paul Pelosi and his DUI.
	I mean, for that, Paul Pelosi has only only himself to blame.
	This guy didn't show up there wanting to hurt Paul Pelosi.
	He showed up there wanting, by his own admission, to quote, kneecap Nancy Pelosi unless she, quote, told the truth.
	And DePape said he didn't think she'd tell the truth about what we don't know.
	But he looked forward to seeing her go into Congress in a wheelchair as a way of sending a message to the other non-truth tellers in Congress.
	He was very upset about Nancy Pelosi, not so upset about his long-term girlfriend and mother of his two children, who was convicted of targeting and stalking a 14-year-old boy whom she reportedly did a long list of negative criminal things to.
Blaming Democrats for Violence 00:05:28
	So in any event, here is how the rhetoric has been by the Democrats.
	Okay.
	The Democrats who now are pure as the driven snow.
	They don't understand these nasty comments that the Republicans keep making about Nancy Pelosi.
	And they certainly have no blood on their hands when it comes to Brett Kavanaugh or Steve Scalise who got shot at the Republican baseball game or anybody or Lee Zeldin who almost got stabbed or anybody else for that matter.
	They have no blood on their hands.
	They're the ones who go the high road when it comes to communication.
	Here's just a sampling of that, Satu.
	Press always ask me, don't I wish I were debating him?
	No, I wish you were in high school.
	I could take him behind the gym.
	No, I said, if we were in high school, I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.
	I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.
	MAGA Republicans represented extremism.
	MAGA Republicans look at America and see carnage and darkness and despair.
	We have six extremist justices on the United States Supreme Court.
	Radical Republicans are charging ahead with their crusade to criminalize health freedom.
	Illegitimate!
	This is Susan!
	Illegitimate!
	MAGA Republicans are destroying American democracy.
	Pure as the driven snow.
	I mean, another thing.
	So I grew up outside of Waukesha, Wisconsin.
	We just saw the conclusion of that trial where there's plenty of evidence that Daryl Brooks was perhaps motivated by some sort of ideology that would have been, that would be classified far left.
	And as soon as that emerged about a year ago, after he killed people at a Christmas parade, as soon as that emerged, the story, which had been going like gangbusters on every network, suddenly disappeared to the background of the media landscape.
	And there was very little coverage of that trial itself.
	I agree completely that the mentally ill people are, you cannot blame the Democratic Party on what happened at the congressional baseball game practice.
	You can't blame people, you can't blame Democrats for what happened to Lee Zeldin.
	I agree with you, Megan, on blaming the leaker for what happened to, or almost happened to Brett Kavanaugh.
	But my gosh, the double standard is infuriating and they will never reckon with it.
	And in fact, what they do is cover for Democrats.
	I saw a corporate media reporter tweeting out a list of all of the attacks on Nancy Pelosi that Republicans have run in advertisements.
	They do this.
	They do the same routine every time someone does something negative to Nancy Pelosi, says something negative to Nancy Pelosi.
	They act as though Republicans running ideologically opposed to Nancy Pelosi has something to do with this.
	And it obviously doesn't, but they never do the same thing in the other direction.
	And I think people are starting to pay attention to that.
	Eliana, they're now, it's like they think people should stand down on the Republican side from attacks, from attack ads in advance of the midterms.
	Chuck Todd was like alarmed that they hadn't pulled ads that bashed Nancy Pelosi saying, you know, we want to fire Nancy Pelosi.
	They're just like, oh my God, like, how could you not?
	What do you mean?
	Nancy Pelosi was not attacked.
	And her husband was attacked by some lunatic.
	Like, what are you saying?
	So did Republicans have to stand down now for the last eight days of this contest because of this, the naked guy who thought he was Jesus for a year?
	We wrote an editorial about this at the Free Beacon making exactly that point and citing that remark from Chuck Todd, who suggested that there was something untoward about Republicans not having pulled their ads targeted at Nancy Pelosi and others in the media suggesting that there was something beyond the pale about Republican ads that use the phrase fire Pelosi.
	I'm not exactly sure how there's something beyond the pale about that rhetoric.
	And if so, what it is and what exactly Democrats and the media want Republicans to do in the last week of the election, other than sit on the bench, sit on their hands, cry, uncle, and cede the last week of this really important election to Democrats.
	And Nancy Pelosi, by the way, is fundraising off of this attack.
	I had an email from her about the attack sent to her constituents.
	And at the bottom of it was a donate button.
	So you can rest assured that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are not going to be ceding the playing field to their Republican opponents in the week, in the final week that we have to go before the polls close.
	Wow.
	Yes, you did have a great piece on this.
	That's where I got my thought from.
	Meanwhile, yesterday I pointed out on the show, CNN had an article in which they spelled out the Dem's plan.
	This is separate and apart from Pelosi in the last eight to 10 days of this election cycle.
	And that was to stoke anger and resentment amongst its own electorate, the Democrats' own electorate, about January 6th, that they were going to raise that boogeyman again and try to get people really upset about January 6th so that they would vote Dem.
	This, as Barack Obama at a Michigan rally for Gretchen Whitmer, comes out yesterday and says, politicians who work to stir up division to try to make us angry and afraid of one another for their own advantage, he's upset about them.
Accountability for Misinformation 00:07:43
	He wants that to stop.
	That's you.
	That's your party.
	That's exactly what they're doing with respect to January 6th and why they're trying to tie this attack on Pelosi to January 6th because the guy went into the house saying, where's Nancy? and was apparently an election denier.
	He believes some of these QAnon and other theories about it, in addition to believing in Black Lives Matter and LGBTQ causes and also fairies.
	So that's where we are.
	All right, stand by.
	I got to squeeze in a commercial break.
	We've got more with the EJs right after this quick break.
	We've got to talk about this piece by Professor Emily Oster of Brown University in the Atlantic, who a lot of conservatives gave props to because in October of 2020, she did a piece calling for schools to open that was cited by then Education Secretary Betsy DeVos with favor, who she also wanted the schools open.
	The latest piece, not so much.
	Emily Oster, who I believe is a, she's a lefty, but she saw some reason at some point in this pandemic, has a piece out today that reads, let's declare a pandemic amnesty in its title.
	And this has set the tweet world on fire.
	And I am one of the people who's burning.
	It's got little, I'll give you a few quotes, okay?
	She talks about how in April of 2020, she had her kids hiking wearing cloth masks she made herself.
	And there was a family hand signal, which the person in front would use if someone was approaching on the trail and they needed to put on their masks.
	And then once when another child got too close to my then four-year-old son on a bridge, he yelled at her, social distancing.
	She uses this to try to show us, see, I was crazy too.
	I made mistakes.
	Well, I got news for you, Emily.
	Most of us were not doing that shit at all.
	Most of us knew that was utter nonsense.
	Never wiped a grocery.
	I never masked my kids before I was forced to to send them back to school.
	And I certainly wouldn't have had the running from other children yelling, social distancing.
	So you're really, I know you're trying to play it like I'm just one of you, but really this whole piece is an effort by Professor Emily Oster to be loved again by the left who was mad at her for her October 2020 piece.
	The whole thing is please love me.
	Please, when I say amnesty, I mean for me.
	She goes on to say, okay, reasonable people advocated on both sides of the reopening debate.
	She goes on to point out most errors were made by people who were working in earnest for the good of society.
	My own note reads, we do not believe that.
	Treating pandemic choices as a scorecard on which some people racked up more points than others is preventing us from moving forward.
	We have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty.
	We need to learn from our mistakes and let them go.
	There's so many online great reactions.
	Monica Crowley.
	Hell no.
	Accountability is coming soon.
	Dave Rubin, absolutely no amnesty.
	Some of us did not lose our minds, did not force vaccines or lockdowns, and instead fought for freedom the entire time.
	It's one thing to have gotten some things wrong.
	It's another to have led the charge to destroy human freedom.
	Preach.
	What do you make of it?
	I hilariously saw some people kind of in the Never Trump right saying like a David French saying, you know, if you, if you followed Emily Oster during the pandemic, you saw that she was for school reopenings and was very good on this stuff.
	And it's like, so what?
	She's talking about this broad idea of amnesty for people who are in positions of power.
	That's the trade-off when you're in power is that you get held accountable when you mess up and you don't get amnesty.
	And I was sort of amenable to the piece just from the headline until I read it and I realized, you know, because a lot of people were absolutely terrified.
	A lot of people had no idea what to make of the so-called science because the Dr. Fauci's of the world were saying one thing one day and the next thing another day.
	And people made decisions based on that and based on what was a legitimate sense of fear because the media was stoking it and because there were some very good reasons.
	A lot of people died.
	But that doesn't mean that people in positions of power and influence, powerful journalists, lawmakers, bureaucrats, get a pass on this when they had the opportunity to make better decisions.
	And why do we know that?
	Because other people who weren't so terrified of the politics or power hungry did make better decisions.
	And that's the trade-off when you have influence is you get held accountable for it.
	So I understand why this is just like, it is pissing people off.
	Like I haven't seen anything in a really long time.
	She's talking about the leftists who put their big government thumb on us for two years and there's never been any accountability or even apology.
	Guess who was quick to like Emily Oster's tweet of her article?
	Randy Weingarten, who tweets out, I agree with Emily Osteron.
	I mean, could you please just sit down, just be quiet, just get fired.
	That's what we want from you.
	No more talking.
	Just your firing.
	Megan, I have to say, I'm a little bit torn about this.
	I like Emily Oster a lot.
	I have a nine month old.
	I followed her stuff on pregnancy.
	Like any women who are kind of like in my childbearing age, she kind of wrote the Bible because she wrote the book that's like, you know, relax.
	You can eat sushi.
	You can drink some wine.
	So, you know, we all follow her.
	And her stuff is good, but I, this is a bad piece.
	And she is, she has written it to get back in the good graces of the elite lefties with she's a professor at Brown.
	Okay.
	Like this is her milieu.
	And she has not quite realized like who her friends are and who they aren't.
	And therein lies the problem here.
	And I'd be much more open, I think, to her argument here had the powers that be come to the public and said, like, hey, we screwed up.
	We're sorry.
	And we've learned from our experience, our experiences.
	And here's how we're going to do it different next time.
	But I think she's offering an amnesty when there's been no, there's really been no public accountability or apology from the part of many of these people, starting with Randy Weingarten.
	How about she's like, obviously some people intended to mislead and made wildly irresponsible claims.
	I'm waiting for her to talk about Dr. Fauci and how he misled us on masks and he misled us on gain of function and he misled us on herd immunity, to name just a few.
	Okay, let's let's drop the hammer, Emily.
	Get your guy.
	Give us some credibility for you that you'll hit the left on their obvious lies and wildly irresponsible claims.
	And you know what she goes to?
	Remember when public health, the public health community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach?
	That was bad.
	Okay, sure.
	That was a much bigger deal than all of Anthony Fauci's lies on gain of function and his smearing of the great Barrington doctors who just wanted focused protection that would focus on the elderly and not, you know, send a bunch of kids out of schools, which would have impacted learning and so on and has.
	I mean, this is a dishonest piece and it's being ripped for good reason.
	And I will tell you, I recently went to a thing where Emily Oster spoke and I was totally underwhelmed.
	She was talking about her last book in which it's all about how you should do a spreadsheet and how to run your family.
	I'm like, all right, how you should talk to your husband and how like your husband and you need to go in different rooms and come up with lists on how you feel.
	And like most people just call that a conversation that you can have easily.
	You don't need a fucking spreadsheet.
	Okay, sorry.
	Bitter party of one.
	To hate her piece.
Halloween Chaos at Mar-a-Lago 00:02:43
	We got to talk about the view.
	The view decided to celebrate Halloween yesterday.
	Instead of Joy Behar revising her blackface years, she decided, they decided to celebrate the following.
	They brought out children, including the following children, one of whom, or a group of whom I haven't seen the photos yet.
	We'll see them together, were dressed as, how did they manage this?
	The Mar-a-Lago raid.
	Let's watch.
	Okay, so one of the hugest topics that you guys talked about this year, the raid on Trump's Mar-Lago estate.
	Yes.
	Okay, so it looks like it's kind of Trump holding documents with the Trump wig and two little police officers wearing FBI jackets.
	Oh my gosh, my documents.
	There's Trump's.
	Whatever.
	Okay.
	That's the one recommendation.
	And then here's another one with a child dressed up as an Oscar's slap.
	This is a reference to the Will Smith Chris rock thing.
	Here it is.
	This year, the Oscars made huge headlines, but it really wasn't about one.
	Comes out a little gold statue.
	Oh, and there they have a picture of rock and hills.
	When he went up and slapped Chris Rock.
	Now, we do not want to endorse violence of any kind, but we couldn't help but talk about one of the hottest, hot topics this year.
	So we have our red handprint on the kids' face.
	I'm sorry.
	It's not funny.
	It's stupid.
	They're not clever.
	Yet another swing and a miss by the ladies of the view.
	What did you guys think?
	I absolutely hate costumes that have to be explained or if you have to add like a name tag.
	I just, it's, it drives me insane.
	And they're doing that, but it's also just in general so incredibly cringe because they, and like, that's what's funny is like they and their producers legitimately think this is hilarious.
	Nobody else thinks this is funny, but they do.
	So they're going to enjoy it.
	The kids are adorable.
	I can at least say that much.
	Yeah, there's that.
	Can I tell you, this is what they needed to do?
	This is my window last night at Halloween.
	Okay.
	This is how Halloween is done.
	No explanation required.
	Just watch.
	Watch this.
	Listening audience.
	You can see ghosts floating in my window.
	Stand by.
	There's like a little girl in the window.
The Queen and the King's Affair 00:15:40
	There she goes.
	She's screaming.
	I'm sorry, ladies, but I want Halloween.
	That's it.
	I want it.
	That's amazing.
	That's pretty good.
	The sound.
	I knew I had done a good job when there was like a little five-year-old girl who was too terrified to come up to the door.
	I'm like, nailed it.
	But the media is going to love that, Megan.
	They're like, Megan Kelly revels in terrifying children.
	I did.
	And for the record, I went to her, but I knew I had done something good.
	It's Halloween.
	You're supposed to be scared.
	In any event, great to see you, ladies.
	And to be continued, they're coming back next week to talk about elections.
	Coming up, Harry William and King Charles with an author who knows them very well.
	Over the next hour, we are going to take a close look at one of the most talked about, complex, and perhaps misunderstood men of our time, Britain's new king, King Charles III.
	What really happened behind palace walls with Princess Diana?
	How did his affair with Camilla begin?
	And what does Charles really think about Megan Markle?
	My next guest has the answers.
	He's done the research.
	For 50 years, he has covered the royal family and is the critically acclaimed author of 18 New York Times bestsellers.
	His latest book, The King, The Life of Charles III, hits shelves next week, but we are lucky enough to get a sneak peek right now.
	Christopher Anderson, welcome to the show.
	Hey, Megan, thanks for having me.
	The pleasure's all mine.
	I think I know your daughter a bit, Kate.
	You do?
	Yes, absolutely.
	I didn't, I never put that together.
	Yeah, you never put it together.
	Oh, no, no, she's she has a book of her own coming out, but we won't talk about that right now.
	Okay, well, send her my regards and much love.
	She wrote a great one about First Ladies not long ago.
	All right.
	So you've written a bunch yourself, and you have been neck deep in Charles before he was king, and now he is king.
	And I think, you know, one of the things that it brought out to me, like one of the things that stood out to me was how bad Charles had it when he was sent away to school, how badly he was bullied.
	I'd heard it referenced like in passing before, but I wound up walking away saying to myself, how is it possible that the future king could go through this?
	No one would intervene.
	They would just allow him to have this experience.
	Can you tell us about it?
	It's a heartbreaking childhood, you know, and it really is a window onto what makes this guy tick.
	I mean, imagine it.
	You know, you're from infancy, you are brought in twice a day to spend 15 minutes with your parents.
	Your nannies bring you in at nine o'clock in the morning, 15 minutes.
	Then you get trucked back at six, just before dinner, before the adults all have dinner, 15 minutes with mommy and daddy.
	That's it.
	So, of course, they lean on the grandmother, which was the queen mother, or maybe, or the nanny, certainly.
	But, you know, Charles has said many, many times the queen was cold and aloof and unapproachable.
	And Philip was worse.
	I mean, he was outright bully, but whom, you know, it was described as hectoring and rough and all that stuff.
	But I just think there's so many instances in the book that really are kind of making your heartbreak.
	If you're just thinking about a little boy, and I think the most touching image of this period is when he's four years old and mommy's been away for six months.
	And so the queen comes back from her first tour of the Commonwealth and she gets off the ship and he runs up to hug her, but she literally pushes him aside because she has adults to greet.
	And then when it's finally his turn, she reaches down and shakes his hand like he was 45 years old.
	Contrast that with Diana.
	You know, Diana, remember those wonderful pictures of her just sweeping William and Harry up in her arms whenever she came back from a trip or something.
	I mean, it just left him with this huge emotional scar.
	And when you go down the list of times Charles was sick, I mean, he was, he had tonsillitis, he had or tonsilectomy, he had very bad flu.
	He had broke his ankle falling downstairs.
	He had his appendix almost burst.
	He had an emergency, an appendectomy.
	All those times and more, the queen and Prince Philip never visited him in the hospital, which I find amazing.
	I mean, the hospital is just a few blocks away.
	So yeah.
	And then and then they sent him off to a Scottish boarding school that where things went from bad to worse.
	Tell us about his experience there.
	How do you pronounce the name of this place?
	Gordonston.
	Gordonston.
	Yes, and the Colditz Castle.
	Right.
	Well, Colditz Castle was a German prisoner of war camp, and he likened Gordonston to that.
	He said it was torture, pure hell.
	He hated every minute of it.
	Nobody should be put through that kind of a life.
	What was happening to him is because he was going to be king and all the other kids knew it, and nobody wanted to look like what they called a sucker, even in England.
	And so it was great sport to bash him in the head with a book, knock him down, wake him up in his sleep by kicking him in the head.
	He had physical abuse the entire time he was at the school from other classmen.
	They hung him up naked in a shower in kind of like a cage and left him there and sprayed him with ice water.
	He wrote these letters home.
	If you read them, it's just very sad.
	He's pleading with his parents to take him out.
	He's telling them what's happening to him.
	He's trying to get the queen mother to intervene.
	But the queen, Prince Philip, no, you have to go through all this.
	So you've got them in the book.
	And here's, you quote from them as follows.
	This is just one example.
	He writes home, the people in my dormitory are foul.
	Goodness, they're horrid.
	I don't see how anybody could be so foul.
	And you write, it didn't help that he snored because, according to the prince, most nights he was pummeled with shoes, pillows, and fists.
	Quote, I simply dread going to bed, he complained, because I get hit all night long and wrote about this school that it was a prison, the worst place on earth, pure torture.
	I hated every minute of it.
	So why didn't they pull him?
	Philip had a cruel streak, to be quite honest with you.
	I know at old age, everybody wants to say, oh, aren't they warm and fuzzy?
	And that's what happens.
	People do sometimes soften up when they get older.
	And I suppose that was the case with Philip.
	But, you know, as a father, the queen had turned everything over to Philip because Philip had to always walk, you know, so many paces behind her and be in the shadow of the queen.
	The trade-off was, well, Philip, you're going to have total say in how the kids are raised.
	And he had a very similar childhood at very rough boarding schools.
	And that's what he wanted Charles to go through.
	But there are more telling incidents, Megan, when he's a teen, even up to the teenage years when Charles is being belittled by his father in front of people.
	His father always made fun of him, reduced him to tears sometimes.
	And I think as a result, Charles always has seen himself as a victim, basically.
	That's what we're dealing with.
	He was trying to toughen him up, but that doesn't always work, you know, with kids just by putting them through hell.
	Sometimes it can just cause lasting damage.
	And I've joked many times on the show, the way to raise, I think, a future leader or somebody who's super successful is you need a little damage, like a little chip on the shoulder may not be a bad thing, but if you cross over to massive damage, you've really just got somebody who's wounded and hurt.
	Right.
	And I think that's definitely what happened in his case.
	And no, here's now he's finally got the top job, as Diana used to call it.
	And it's, we're going to have to wait and see if, you know, I know he's waited too long, let's say he's waited longer than anybody else for the inherit the throne, seven years compared to just 59 for Edward VII.
	So he's going to bring all of that emotional baggage with him to this job.
	And it's a big muscle.
	We'll see how it turns out.
	Well, do we think he's like, we don't know Prince Charles, but I mean, King Charles now, but is he a happy person?
	Is he a morose person?
	He can be an angry, moody person.
	And that behind the scenes, you know, you get stories, and I write about this about his temper.
	It's atrocious.
	I mean, he, his uh valet said or valets as they like to say uh, he lost a cufflink and uh couldn't get it out in the sink.
	Couldn't get it out, so he tore the sink off the wall and he spun around and and uh grabbed his uh valet by the throat and tried to strangle him.
	I mean, that was the kind of it was typical of Charles, and we got a little glimpse of it even during with the pen, the fountain pen, right before that, when the guy yeah, before that, when the guy didn't clear off the desk fast enough when he sat down in Scotland to sign those papers, and the guy yeah he oh, you know he, he's used to getting his way um, and you know, I think it's amazing to me that, knowing the position he was in at that moment,
	you know you'd think he'd be a little more savvy and the whole world was watching him.
	So uh, let's have a little more self-control.
	But no, he's like I hate to psychoanalyze him, but you almost feel like okay, so here's this kid who didn't feel he had the love of his parents and certainly not the protection of his parents, was very badly bullied, arguably by them, and certainly by his, his classmates.
	And so what did he have?
	He had his title, he had this sense of importance.
	I mean I, I imagine a kid like that would be leaning into that.
	You know, like y'all i'll, you'll all be sorry when i'm king, and so being treated like king and like royalty would become important to such a person, because what else do they have right?
	And he'd say even and it's funny because he would weaponize that against his own parents when he got older because, for example, these are different things but they it's along the same lines uh when when uh, the queen tried to talk him out of his affair with Camilla uh, i'm sorry, when Philip tried to talk out of Camilla, you know, he said, i'm not going to be the first king without a mistress.
	At first future king without a mistress uh, you know I uh, do you know who I am?
	Was something he has said over the years many, many times when his bidding wasn't done uh, immediately.
	So so yeah, he's weird of understanding it better.
	So he's not just, like you know, an egotistic jerk.
	He's.
	This is damage manifesting in somebody who really has something to prove now.
	Um, can we talk about the Camilla I?
	I find this whole relationship fascinating.
	She's gonna be.
	I mean, can you explain the difference between queen, consort and queen and?
	And because she's going to be at least queen consort and I don't, I don't really know, do you drop consort and that elevates her?
	What's, what's the difference between those two things?
	Well, it's interesting because you know queen, you've got the queen who's a as a sovereign monarch, that would be queen Elizabeth, who inherited, because she was the only child of the last the monarch before her.
	Uh, but uh, the queen Mother was a queen consort, but this consort notion is kind of uh, an invention, a recent one.
	She will be she yes, by virtue of being his consort.
	She will be queen.
	She will be called queen Camilla and that's a big hurdle that Charles is going to have to get over, because there's a lot of resentment still in England toward her.
	I mean, you remember how she was, how people felt about her.
	She's the most hated woman in in in uh, the Uk and maybe even in the world really, of you gotta hope that.
	She's gotta be hoping that his philosophy of I will not be the first king without a mistress has has waned, Whoa, wait, say what?
	So, so she tell us about their relationship because you write in the book that she was, she was a snob.
	This is one of the reasons why she didn't like Princess Kate, who is now Princess Kate, Kate Middleton.
	But Camilla, she always thought of herself as upper crust, and she was going to be like the whisperer with Charles.
	And do you think she, because she was married, she got married pretty young after he got with Diana.
	Do you think she ever had like designs on breaking up that marriage to Diana and replacing her?
	Well, no, as a matter of fact, since her great-grandmother was Alice Keppel, who was the mistress of Edward VII and really his true love.
	I mean, when Edward VII died, Queen Alexandra called Alice Keppel to the king's bedside because she knew he was she was the really hit the love of that king's life.
	So the first time they meet, she walks up to him and says, Camilla walks up to Prince Charles, then Prince Charles, and says, well, my great-grandmother and your great-great-grandfather were lovers, so how about it?
	And, you know, she pretty much made it clear what her intentions were at the time.
	And she thought, even in childhood, she'd said, I told her friends that she, you know, she bragged about being the descendant of the king's mistress.
	And later, when she was right, when she got out of school, she took a job like a lot of these aristocrats do because she is the granddaughter of a baron.
	And she, you know, they were all marrying lords and dukes and whatever.
	And so they asked, why aren't you marrying a lord or a duke?
	And she said, I'm holding out for a king.
	And that's the most revealing moment I think about Camilla.
	She was holding out for a king.
	What happened to her?
	Because as much as he didn't seem to love Diana, all of his statements about Camilla have been, have sounded totally different.
	I mean, I do believe he's deeply in love with her and has been for a long, long time.
	What is it about her?
	You know, from the outside, it's not immediately apparent.
	No, it's not.
	Somebody said, you know, the problem, yeah, the mistake Charles made was that he married his trophy wife first.
	That was amazing.
	He was infatuated with Camilla from the get-go after that first meeting.
	Well, how about it?
	Well, then they did have an affair.
	But then he went off in the military for his military training because the future king has to go in all the services.
	And while he's at sea, she marries somebody else, Parker Bowles, Andrew Parker Bowles, who was also in the circle.
	He was a captain, but he was in the army, but he was in a royal circle there.
	And boy, Charles just went off the deep end.
	He was heartbroken, you know, devastated.
	And he wrote letters about it to Lord Mountbatten, who was this kind of surrogate father.
	But yeah, so he, but he was in love with her.
	And then when Charles was basically forced to marry, and ironically, Camilla and another mistress of Charles named Lady Kanga Tryon, they were the people who picked Diana out to be his bride, to be the, you know, the mother.
	I mean, his bride had to be a virgin under, you know, British tradition.
	And this was the woman who was going to have his two children and the heir to the throne.
	He did not want to get married, but they knew he had to.
	And these two women, mistresses of his, picked Diana.
	And from then on, of course, you know, it's history.
	I mean, catastrophic.
	Disaster ensued.
	He was 31.
	Diana was 19.
	It's crazy when you think about that and how she was hand-picked.
	And you write in the book about that moment that we can all remember now where they gave their joint interview, Charles and Diana, upon engagement.
	And the question of love came up.
	And my God, every woman in America and probably in Great Britain wanted to smack him when the following took place at Soundbite 10.
Betrayal in Royal Weddings 00:14:36
	Can you find the words to sum up how you feel today, both of you?
	Difficult to find words in the word, isn't it, really?
	Just delighted and happy.
	And I'm amazed that she's been brave enough to take me on.
	And I suppose in love.
	Of course.
	Whatever in love means.
	Well, it's obviously your own interpretation.
	Obviously, means two very happy people.
	From us, congratulations.
	Thank you very much.
	I know.
	Chris.
	Well, and also, you know, this really sad thing is that she was in love with him.
	You know, I'm convinced of that.
	I'm sort of teamed Diana along here.
	A lot of people have kind of demonized her in recent years in England, in particular.
	And in fact, she's, I think she was kind of driven to the actions that she took by what was happening to her and what that relationship was like.
	You know, the famous lion, there were three of us in this marriage.
	And that was from the get-go.
	At her wedding, she walks down the aisle and she said she could see Camilla sitting there with her own son, Tom, Camilla's son, who's again a young boy, on her lap.
	And she just, Diana was saying to herself, I feel like the lamb to the slaughter, you know.
	And isn't it?
	Didn't Charles say that?
	Like, why wouldn't he just go?
	Okay, we're going to go through the motions.
	We're going to get a bride.
	We're going to get the mother of my children.
	But, you know, this is not the love of my life.
	But we're putting on a display for the public.
	We know what the display requires, a showing of affection.
	And, you know, you got to fake it, basically.
	Fake that you love this person.
	So was that for Camilla's sake that he wouldn't just say, yes, of course, love, not whatever love is, really.
	I know.
	I think it's also lingering resentment.
	I think it is for Camilla's sake in part, although she's the person who went and married somebody else.
	And then that, by the way, sent him on this kind of sexual, you know, a series of affairs with lots of different women in response to that, which I write about in the book as well.
	But yeah, I think he could have been a lot more savvy.
	You know, he made a lot of gaps over the years.
	At one point, not when the boys were teenagers, or yeah, they were still teenagers.
	He just told off the press corps on an open mic and talked about the people he hated who were standing just feet in front of him.
	And everyone was just amazed that he was so lacking in that kind of savvy.
	He just will not control himself the way he should.
	It should be a little bit of a decorum that his mother certainly had and unfailingly.
	I mean, just she was unflinching in her appropriateness.
	That sound bite you mentioned.
	So ultimately, after their marriage fell apart and all the affair, blah, blah, blah.
	And Diana had affairs too.
	It should be noted for the record.
	He was not the only one who wandered.
	She wandered quite a bit too, which I'll talk to you about in one second.
	But she was asked in this interview she gave about Camilla.
	This is Sat 13.
	Do you think Mrs. Parker Bowles was a factor in the breakdown of your marriage?
	Well, there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.
	So that was with Martin Bashir.
	That would become very, very well known.
	People hated Prince Charles because of it.
	You know, she's so demure, she's so beautiful.
	But truly, in his defense, there really was more to the story.
	And Diana was not a faithful spouse to him either.
	No, that's true.
	But again, my feeling is that she was more or less driven to it.
	If it hadn't been for Camilla, I don't think it would have started this kind of domino, had this domino effect that it had on their relationship.
	And of course, you're looking at the boys now and thinking with, I mean, see, as far as Camilla becoming queen, and there's a move afoot right now to get rid of the consort part.
	I mean, Charles is absolutely going to get, shove that aside.
	So she will just be queen.
	I think that it's one thing to be told that Camilla will be queen.
	It's another thing to watch them place that crown on the top of her head during coronation, which will be watched by billions of people this coming May 6th.
	There's a lot of resentment toward Camilla even today.
	But it's listening.
	If you look at the polls, you know, I remember looking at these because I was seeing what happened with Megan and Harry and their approval and it wasn't good.
	But Camilla's had gotten better.
	It used to be really low.
	The lowest is Prince Andrew.
	And after him is, I think, Megan Markle.
	And then Harry.
	I know, exactly.
	So it kind of edges up.
	But Camilla's above them now.
	Like they're warming to her.
	Well, you know, but she's still unpopular.
	I mean, she's not in the positive region.
	What happened was there was as recently as last November, polls showed that only 14% of people, even then, would accept her as queen, as Prince Consort.
	And yes, when the queen, Queen Elizabeth, you know, gave her stamp of approval, that changed everything for a while.
	But I think that's actually kind of eroding now.
	I mean, she jumped from 14% to 50% in that region.
	But she's going back to where she was because people are beginning to, you know, the honeymoon's over.
	Now it's real.
	Yeah.
	And so, and it's going to be, you know, just a little aside, there's a little dust up behind palace walls about what crown they're going to use for Camilla.
	There was talk of her wanting to have the Queen Mother's Crown.
	And the Queen Mother's Crown is a humdinger.
	Let me tell you, it has the Kohenor diamond in it.
	Oh boy.
	105 carats.
	It's worth half a billion dollars by some estimates.
	And it sits in the middle of this huge thing, which is festooned with rubies and other gems that are astounding.
	There's a feeling that that would be too much on top of everything else.
	And also, it would make the nation of India angry because the Kohenur diamond was kind of basically taken by Queen Victoria to settle the dispute.
	I went back and looked at this.
	I went back and looked at this just for kicks one time.
	And it was like, it's so confusing.
	If you actually want to find the origins of that diamond, you're going to go down a deep rabbit hole.
	You know, like somebody stole it from some king magically, he had it, then suddenly he was dead and another country had it.
	Then suddenly he was dead.
	And another country had it.
	In any event, it's a controversial diamond.
	So yeah, there's enough controversy around her.
	Right.
	Well, I mean, she doesn't need any more controversy.
	That's what I'm sure.
	So we'll see what happens there.
	But my feeling, you know, one of the major bits of new information in the book is about this, it's a quid pro quo deal, an unspoken quid pro quo deal about that really resulted in the queen endorsing Camilla earlier this year.
	And I think that's the key to their success citing that, but we'll see if that works.
	So but what's the nature of the deal?
	So the queen blessed it.
	What did the queen get?
	Well, what the queen got was Charles not saying anything about the $14 million payment she contributed to significantly out of her private funds to pay off the settlement for Prince Andrew's Jeffrey Epstein case.
	Charles had been one of the strongest people in the family along with William in standing up and saying, no, we're not going to tolerate this.
	Andrew, even though he is mummy's favorite child, is going to be basically sidelined, banished from the family and punished, stripped of his titles, the whole thing.
	Charles was behind that with William's support.
	It was expected that if the queen said she was going to pay for this settlement, this $14 million civil settlement, Charles was going to put up a ruckus.
	But the men in gray behind the scenes actually Suggested that this might be in exchange a good time, February 6th, the 7th, the actual 70th anniversary of Elizabeth's reign, to finally endorse Camilla.
	It's something that she had said she would never be.
	The queen had for 17 years since Charles' marriage to Camilla, refused to make that statement.
	But you may recall, out of the blue, she says it takes everybody by surprise.
	Oh, the queen now wants Camilla to be queen.
	No one expected that, I think, least of all William and Harry.
	And I think it hurt them actually quite.
	She found a way to protect both sons.
	I mean, it's pretty clever on her part, right?
	That she helped Andrew and she gave Charles what he wanted in the process.
	Right.
	And it shows you how transactional some of these things are behind the scenes.
	And again, it doesn't have to be a written document.
	It doesn't have to be a formal stated thing, but the guys, you know, working behind the scenes, working out the details, it became a quid pro quo, and it worked, it didn't work for both.
	So I'm curious, when we talked about it, we didn't really get into it, but the book does a good job of exposing some of Camilla's snobbery.
	And you talk about her background here and why she was that way.
	Now she's going to be queen.
	And Charles, you write about, you know, he was very open-minded to Megan Markle, but that he felt snubbed, felt somewhat snubbed.
	He walked her halfway down the aisle and then she broke up with her dad.
	So how do you think King Charles and Queen Camilla now look at this commoner, you know, Megan Markle?
	Like they didn't like Kate.
	She came from a working class family, but she's been a total team player.
	How do you think they now see Megan Markle, who comes as a TV divorcee, which is what I was before when I married my second husband?
	And I had zero chance of marrying into the royal family.
	So I could say it.
	She was a TV divorcee.
	How do you think they're looking at her now?
	Well, you know, there was, and by the way, Kate is not in the same league.
	I mean, Kate Middleton is, I'm a huge fan of her.
	I think she's just, you know, is doing a spectacular job.
	And I always think she was always underrated previously.
	And the family loves her now and they didn't have leaner popularity.
	It's unquestionable.
	But when you go to Harry and Megan, you're absolutely right.
	I think there's an element, initially, there was an element of betrayal here.
	I mean, obviously, the royals embraced Megan initially.
	They, you know, you remember that trip that Elizabeth and Megan took.
	They were on the royal train.
	They went a trip West England and they were laughing and having the greatest time.
	They absolutely clicked.
	There was no question about it.
	And as you said, Charles walked Megan down the last half of the aisle during the wedding.
	And he was fawning all over the mother, Harry's mother-in-law.
	I mean, he was genuinely, he genuinely liked Doria Raglan and they became very friendly.
	That's Mako's mom.
	So it's the slap in the face.
	I think now there's been a lot of simmering resentment and bitterness.
	And every time they're reminded of this book that's going to come out in January, Harry's book, Spare, you know, it's just another moment for them to be terrified because they have no idea what's going to be coming their way.
	So I think, and by the way, I was, shouldn't have been surprised, but I was a little surprised at the tension between Harry and Megan and all the rest of the royals during the funeral.
	I mean, I would have thought they could have, if not buried the hatchet, at least put it to the side for a minute.
	But it was clear what was going on.
	They were being shunted aside.
	Charles still came and said, no, you can't wear your uniform in the beginning.
	If you remember during the funeral, Harry was not allowed to wear his uniform to the various ceremonies, but Andrew was.
	Edward was, and he's never been in the military.
	No, I thought Andrew was not.
	Neither one was.
	No, in the beginning, he was.
	He had a uniform on.
	I was stunned in the very kind of opening scenes of the funeral.
	But later on, Charles, I'm sorry, Harry was allowed to wear his ceremonial garb, his uniform, during the vigil of the grandchildren.
	It used to be called the Vigil of the Prince.
	And I understand he served his country.
	He did, and he fought in Afghanistan.
	But, you know, he left the royal family.
	Like, you quit, you know, like if I quit Fox News, I don't get to wear the little jacket anymore.
	You know, it's like, that's how it goes.
	Well, you do kind of wonder, somebody said to give up the royal family to become an influencer is about what happens.
	It's a mystery.
	I think, right, you know, there are always people who want to liken women who enter the royal family who don't seem up to snuff in terms of their backgrounds, aristocrats or whatever.
	They always liken them to Wallace Simpson.
	But in this case, you know, it's coming more into focus.
	I believe that that's what a lot of the people in the royal family think they have on their hands.
	I can see why.
	Yeah.
	It just, yeah, it's irritating to them.
	It's hurtful to them.
	I think William is more angry than his father about the position that he's been put in because he doesn't have any help, you know?
	Yeah.
	Well, you mentioned that earlier that maybe Charles asked William about Andrew and they were on the same page about him needing to be shunned.
	How many just like, how involved do you think William is and is going to be in now King Charles decision making, right?
	Because Charles is what, 70, 70, 73?
	How old is he?
	Yes.
	73.
	So like, you know, he doesn't have, even if, even if he has his mom's great genes, yeah, he doesn't have that long on the throne.
	So you got to think he's, he's, I don't know, how big a role will William play over the next 10, 20 years?
	Yeah, but this is the biggest misconception, I think, and that is that this is a caretaker king.
	He's just keeping the throne warm for William.
	He is going to, I think longevity will be in play.
	I think he will be around long enough to make a real impact that he's just determined to do that.
	You know, he wants to make a change.
	And I think what he's going to do, and he's already started in smallish ways, but he wants to modernize, streamline, you know, bring it into the 21st century.
	Ironically, this man is more of a 19th century, I think, than the 21st, but he does have definite plans.
	Most of these results involve cost cutting and how you finance the monarchy and all that.
	But of course, we're talking about a billion-dollar institution here.
	Williams.
	I'm not going to lie.
	It's fun to think about these like lesser royals kind of being kicked out.
	It's like, I'm sure the British people are sick of them clombing on, getting the taxpayer dollars.
	I don't know.
	I just feel like downsizing of an institution that's not that popular is a good idea.
	Am I off?
	No, you're right.
Downsizing the Royal Institution 00:04:08
	I mean, I think it'll be interesting to see what the blowback is with some of the people we do know.
	Not that they're the biggest names in the royal family, but years ago, and I write about this in the book, you know, Charles actually proposed that several royalists be kicked off the payroll and suggested it wouldn't be a bad idea if Beatrice and Eugenie, Andrew's daughters, became ladies, became Lady Beatrice and Lady Eugene, no longer princesses.
	You know, Andrew, this is before the Epstein thing, so Andrew had some clout.
	He went to mummy and said that's not happening.
	And it didn't, but it could now, you know.
	So it'll be interesting.
	Well, and that leads me, that leads me to Harry's children and whether they're going to be prince and princess.
	I'm going to leave that as my tease, squeeze in a quick break and come back.
	We've got much more to discuss with Christopher Anderson.
	So interesting.
	I find this whole thing fascinating.
	This whole way of life is fascinating.
	And the Charles backstory in particular had me page turning on the book.
	Stand by.
	Let's continue our discussion about Megan and Harry and all that.
	They made obviously big, big headlines last year when they gave their interview to Oprah.
	And rather than being appreciative of the many gifts that they had both received, thanks to the British people, and in her case, also thanks to the American people, they went out there and started whining about their lives.
	I mean, I was on with Piers Morgan the very next day in that now infamous episode of his where he walked off and then he wound up not having a job saying, we are up to our necks in dead bodies in America and Great Britain when it comes to COVID.
	First responders dealing with a massive public health crisis, doctors and nurses dealing.
	And she wants us to give a damn about what title her kid is going to get.
	Well, we don't.
	We don't.
	While they're still whining about it, and it is something that King Charles is holding over their heads about whether their little Lily Bette and Archie are going to be princes and princesses because he's got his book coming out now January 10th, The Spare, which seems provocative and like a poke.
	She's got the Netflix special she's doing with him, her podcast and so on.
	And there seems to be no limit to their appetite for ripping on the royals to whom they owe literally all of their fame and most of their fortune.
	So what's going to happen there in your estimation?
	But tell us how you really think, Megan.
	I'm not shy.
	Yeah, yeah.
	No, I mean, look, of course, they're immensely unpopular.
	Now, do you remember how you do, I'm sure, how popular Harry was?
	He was, you know, he was the, yes, he had problems with drugs when he was young and made a lot of gaps, the Nazi uniform, all this stuff, costume party.
	But, you know, people loved him.
	And his service 10 years in the army and, you know, actually in combat, that sort of thing.
	And then this happens.
	And then you couldn't have had a larger fold race than the British in terms of the Brits.
	I mean, Megan is not highly, well, the polls say it all, don't they?
	She's got like a less than 22% approval rating over there.
	Right.
	And I think, I mean, again, you know, Camilla is a little better right now, but she'll sink down into that territory back then, back to that area.
	But it's kind of astounding.
	And I guess it's just one of those things that I always was taken by the fact that, you know, from the get-go, Megan Markle said that she knew nothing about Harry being a prince, knew nothing about the family.
	Well, you know, she like every other young woman of that age, they were all in love with it.
	He knew all she, there were pictures of her at the gates of Buckingham Palace when she was a teenager, you know.
	For my age, it was JFK Jr.
	For her age, it was Prince Harry.
	Let's get real.
	There's always that eligible bachelor in the Kennedys back when I was growing up were the closest thing we had to American royalty, even though we don't like royalty here.
	And so she was a liar.
	I mean, that's really what we're both saying.
	She lied about it.
Misinterpreted Innocent Comments 00:05:18
	She lied.
	And she, my producer was pointing out, she, in her latest podcast, she's talking about whatever her guest mentions Harry and Megan replies, oh, my husband.
	He's great talking about helping her get the kids ready in the morning.
	And my producer, Kelly, says, is it just me or is it so annoying how she always refers to him as my husband?
	It's not just you, Kelly.
	It is all of us.
	My husband.
	We get it.
	You bagged the gorilla.
	Congratulations.
	You got the big bear.
	You want us to know.
	We know.
	Okay.
	So anyway, let's go back to the Harry and Megan interview with Oprah, okay?
	Where instead of being grateful for the many gifts that they've received, they decided to make a thing out of the royal family being racist.
	And in particular, said as follows, it's Sat 16.
	In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time, so we have in tandem the conversation of he won't be given security.
	He's not going to be given a title.
	And also, concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born.
	What?
	And who is having that conversation with you?
	What?
	So there is a conversation.
	Hold it.
	Hold up.
	There are several conversations.
	There's a conversation with you.
	With Harry about how dark your baby is going to be?
	Potentially, and what that would mean or look like.
	And you're not going to tell me who had the conversation?
	I think that would be very damaging to them.
	Which is the entire point.
	That was acting.
	Standby.
	I'm going to get you to weigh in on this, but I want to show where Harry weighed in on it shortly thereafter.
	That conversation I'm never going to share.
	But at the time, at the time, it was awkward.
	I was a bit shocked.
	Can you tell us what the question was?
	No, I'm not comfortable with sharing that.
	So you've got some information on this that made a lot of news.
	What happened?
	Well, I mean, you know, it was an innocent comment.
	I've written about this before made by, and this was at the very beginning of it, it was prior to the wedding of, it was during when their engagement was about to be announced.
	It was not during the pregnancy and it was not surrounding a discussion of titles or security about any baby.
	Nothing like that at all.
	It was an innocent conversation about two people who are going to be, if they are going to be grandparents, you know, Charles and Camilla, speculating on what the kids might look like.
	You know, obviously you have two very attractive people here.
	And gee, I wonder what color their eyes will be, what their hair will be like, you know, this kind of thing.
	It was something, I would say, relatively benign and witnessed by several people and then spun into something toxic and rougher sounding by, again, the men in gray who operate the monarchy behind the scenes.
	By the time it got to Harry and Megan, it might have been something that they misinterpreted.
	It was a game of telephone, let's put it that way.
	But, you know, to imagine that there was anything venal or racist about it, I think it's wrong and misguided and misleading.
	Well, I mean, it's funny because a lot of our listeners and viewers have written in about this.
	We've talked about this, obviously, many times, like any journalist covering those two, and that interview has.
	And so many of our viewers who are in mixed race relationships say it is a very natural thing to talk about what's the baby going to look like?
	You know, it's going to be darker or lighter, gonna look like you, gonna look like me.
	It's not considered racist.
	It's just you're curious about how your baby's gonna look.
	A judgment, a negative judgment attached to darker skin would be racist.
	But just wondering, that's not racist.
	It's not racist.
	And the thing, too, it's doubly true of grandparents.
	I'm a grandparent.
	I can tell you that, you know, of course we did that with all three of our grandkids, you know?
	I mean, why not?
	It's fun to speculate on things like that.
	And it doesn't show any disrespect or any hints of racism or anything of the sort.
	And to jump to that conclusion based on that, I would find, you know, to be, in my view, pretty irresponsible.
	But it's great.
	If you're telling me that the misunderstanding to be charitable came from the men in gray and that they were, you know, Harry was misled.
	I'm sorry, but that doesn't let him off the hook.
	He should know his father.
	He should know that his dad is not a racist.
	I mean, there's no, as far as I know, and you just wrote the bio on the guy, there's not some history of the dad wearing a Nazi uniform at Halloween, of the dad doing racist things that why would Harry so willingly jump to, I'll never share it.
	Yes, it would be very damaging.
	There's a raging racist in my family.
	Well, I think it's interesting, too.
	If you look back, everybody remembers Harry's past.
Angry Black Woman Myth 00:03:54
	I mean, he had trouble with the drugs.
	He had, when he was a teenager, that got, you know, the tabloids at a field band with it.
	He wore the Nazi uniform to do a costume party.
	He said some things people interpreted as being anti-Muslim to some army buddies.
	You know, he got hot water repeatedly.
	He drank too much.
	He was always being pulled out of clubs, drunk and stumbling about.
	But all along the way, and I have to hand it to Charles as a guy who was his whole childhood was a mess, but he stepped up.
	He backed Harry.
	He got him the help he needed when he needed it.
	He would not, you know, banish Harry.
	He actually was one of his closest allies when Carrie had to deal with all of these various things.
	So it is too bad that Harry couldn't remember that part of their relationship, I guess.
	Well, I mean, I think he's heavily influenced by his woke wife who wokeified him.
	And she's out there every week doing these woke podcasts.
	I'll just, I want to play this because I do think it's remarkable.
	So she's her latest podcast was with the prime minister of Canada's wife, Mrs. Trudeau.
	And but the one that she dropped last week is about, she does these, you know, stereotypes.
	She calls them archetypes, but I'm not sure she really understands the difference.
	And this one is focused on what it's the angry black woman and how black women are portrayed as angry by Hollywood.
	Here's just a bit of that from the intro to her piece.
	It's Sot 21.
	We all know that sometimes things make you feel angry or sad or hurt or upset.
	And that's not a gender or racially specific feeling.
	Yet this trope of the angry black woman, it persists.
	I mean, I remember when I was auditioning, the idea of even black roles, and I remember those casting sheets where the description of the character, she always had to have an edge or an attitude.
	Okay.
	So all black women have to be angry in Hollywood, according to her.
	And then she expounds on that and says, the guest says, people have a problem with black women being direct.
	Megan Markle agrees, saying, yes, people conflate being direct with being demanding.
	And then she talks about how she too has experienced this exact problem.
	And this is how she explains it, SOT 20.
	I'm particular.
	A, I think high tide raises all ships, right?
	We're all going to succeed.
	So let's make sure it's really great.
	Yes.
	It's a shared success for everybody.
	But I also know that I will find myself cowering and tiptoeing into a room where, I don't know if you ever do that, the thing that I find the most embarrassing.
	When you're saying a sentence, but the intonation goes up like it's a question.
	Oh man.
	And you're like, oh my God, stop.
	Stop like whispering and tiptoeing around.
	It just say what it is that you need.
	You're allowed to set a boundary.
	You're allowed to be clear.
	It does not make you demanding.
	It does not make you difficult.
	Makes you clear.
	Okay.
	That's, that's a human phenomenon.
	That is not, that has nothing to do with angry black woman.
	Everybody walks into a room, wants to be liked, doesn't want to piss off a bunch of strangers or new people that they've just met.
	Meanwhile, juxtapose this against the stories.
	There's one in the New York Post just last week about how she's nasty to wait staff.
	She goes in demanding.
	This is even before she was a wife.
	She was just the girlfriend of Prince Harry.
	I'm Prince Harry's girlfriend, wanting the best table and wanting the tables around her to be cleared so she didn't have to be next to any of the serfs who weren't dating a prince.
	All the staff that she's fired or who have quit because she's impossible to work for has nothing to do with color, right?
	She's got to make it about color because she's enjoying painting herself as the victim of racism.
Nasty Behavior Toward Staff 00:04:06
	What do you make of it?
	Well, upspeak, by the way, is hated by everybody.
	Nothing to do with race.
	Even you as a white man?
	Oh, yeah, man.
	Look, I got to tell you, I was blown away by the deal or no deal stuff.
	You know, she recently, you know, said she felt, you know, humiliated and stigmatized and she felt like a bimbo and all that.
	Objectified.
	She was objectified.
	Yes, objectified.
	I'm so sorry.
	But Howie Mandel, the host of the show, said he felt like a bimbo.
	So, you know, but look, it was a break of a lifetime for her.
	She would, she knows she would have killed for that job.
	And it was really her first really big break in show business, as it was for many women who went on to television movie roles and that sort of thing.
	So it's somewhat, as they say, disingenuous to say you bite the hand that feeds you, really.
	I mean, I think that the deal or no deal gig was absolutely critical and crucial to her career and her future.
	Deal or no deal is basically what she said to Harry when she was threatening to leave him if he didn't come out publicly and name her as his girlfriend.
	Let's get down to it.
	Do we have a deal or don't we?
	That's something Kate Middleton should have tried years earlier.
	So what's going to happen now?
	What do you think is going to happen?
	Everybody's looking at this book.
	He's going to drop on January 10th.
	And, you know, as they say, the title doesn't suggest nice things are in there.
	What do you think that's going to do to their relationship with King Charles, you know, the Prince William, who I know you write in the book, he's more miffed about the Harry Megan situation than even King Charles is.
	But what do you think the future holds now after this book comes out and the Netflix special?
	Wow.
	You know, by the way, on the Network special, well, there's also the Crown.
	Sorry.
	Just aside an aside here, the criticism the Crown is getting, I find rather ridiculous.
	I mean, Judy Dench, you know, criticizing the bruises of the crown for being too rough on the royal family.
	Give me a break.
	Camilla watches the crown.
	She even met the woman who portrays her recently and praised her on her performance.
	Harry watches the crown.
	You know, it's everyone in the royal family watches the crown and they enjoy it.
	So I think that that's unfair.
	But getting back to the spare.
	Oh, by the way, it's not the spare.
	It's spare.
	That's the title of that book, of Harry's book, makes it even more, you know, confrontational in some way.
	You're right.
	They are shaking in their boots.
	They are terrified.
	They don't know what's in this book after what happened with Okra and whatnot.
	What more could there be?
	Well, this is going to cover, as I understand it, you know, the whole period of his parents' divorce and everything else following that.
	So I don't, I can't imagine it's going to be a very pretty picture of the royal family.
	And then it leaves Charles in this horrible position.
	I mean, he has got, and he intends to make his mark on history.
	That's what this is all about.
	He waited 70 years to do it, you know, and longer than anybody else.
	And he needs all hands on deck.
	He needs that family on that balcony.
	And what does he get?
	He gets this kind of fractured, contentious group of people who are throwing shade all the time.
	So it'll be interesting to see how he deals with it.
	I don't think there's a real risk he might not just say those kids are not getting titles, but that Harry and Megan are going to be stripped of their titles, which a lot of people have been calling for for a long time now since they obviously have no loyalty to the royal family.
	Well, they don't have any, I mean, they have lost basically their HRH status, the royal status on it.
	But there's another step.
	They're still allowed to be the Duke and Duchess.
Charles Faces Fractured Family 00:00:58
	Right, right.
	And that'll be, I think it's certainly in the cards.
	That could happen.
	He could do it.
	Charles has a, you know, he's a toughie.
	And the thing is, you can only do it once.
	So it's like right now he's got it to hang over them.
	And, you know, they do seem to be motivated.
	They love their titles.
	She certainly loves hers.
	They use it and everything.
	All right, Christopher Anderson, I got to run because I'm up against it.
	But this is fascinating.
	I recommend the book.
	It's a great read.
	It's a quick read.
	And every page is full of new and interesting nuggets.
	It's called The King, The Life of Charles III.
	And it makes a great Christmas gift, too.
	So now's the time.
	It's out next week.
	Before we go, check this out on YouTube.
	My neighbor, dressed as a scary clown.
	I think it's the grown-up version of Pennywise, just stood in front of my house and other houses as scary as could be.
	They called security on him.
	It was amazing.
	See you tomorrow.
	Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:30 Voters Worry About Crime
00:15:45 Election Denial Tactics
00:31:10 Blaming Democrats for Violence
00:36:38 Accountability for Misinformation
00:44:22 Halloween Chaos at Mar-a-Lago
00:47:05 The Queen and the King's Affair
01:02:45 Betrayal in Royal Weddings
01:17:22 Downsizing the Royal Institution
01:21:30 Misinterpreted Innocent Comments
01:26:48 Angry Black Woman Myth
01:30:43 Nasty Behavior Toward Staff
01:34:49 Charles Faces Fractured Family