All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Nov. 30, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:30
20231130_piers-morgan-uncensored-royal-race-row-revelations
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Naming The Racist Royals 00:11:24
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored, the bombshell royal revelations, the whole world is talking about my decision last night to name the two royals at the center of the alleged racism storm has divided opinion across the globe.
Tonight we'll debate why I did it.
We'll also debate Omid Scobie's rampant lying and we'll debate whether there's any truth behind those, in my view, entirely baseless allegations of racism.
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Two and a half years ago, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex sat down with Oprah Winfrey to air a slew of grievances and claims about the royal family that they had deserted.
The most incendiary claim was that members of the royal family had raised, quote, concerns in multiple conversations about what skin colour baby Archie's skin would be.
And also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born.
What?
About how dark your baby is going to be?
Potentially and what that would mean or look like.
Hold up, 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.
Ooh.
And you're not going to tell me who had the conversation?
I think that would be very damaging to them.
Okay.
Compartmentalized conversation.
That if he were too brown, that that would be a problem.
Are you saying that?
I wasn't able to follow up with why, but if that's the assumption you're making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one.
You see, that's just an allegation of racism, right there.
It's not ambiguous.
That is Meghan Markle accusing a member of the royal family of being racist, judging somebody according to the colour of their skin and how brown they are.
There's no room for thinking it's anything else.
Now, the impact of that claim was extraordinary.
The claims were reported breathlessly across the world.
Tens of millions of people, hundreds of millions, were left with the unavoidable impression that Britain is a racist country with racists at the heart of our royal family.
But just the fact that there is, according to both of them, this ongoing blatant racism, not only in the UK tabloid press, but in the family.
But for some people in this country, a blanket denial of racism, like the one that we heard from Prince William yesterday, just isn't enough.
Buckingham Palace is full of racism.
Among the more shocking revelations was that it's sort of overt racism she faced within the royal family.
But here it is, a couple that's truly in love.
And the thing that you want to question is their skin tone.
I hope all those people are having severe second thoughts or buyers' remorse about believing what Meghan Markle and Prince Harry said.
I don't need to because that day I said I didn't believe a word of it and I had to leave my job because I didn't believe them, even though I think they were lying.
Well for two and a half years there's been frenzy speculation about who these supposedly racist royals are.
Just about every single member of the royal household has been implicated in the rumors at some point.
And that surely isn't fair, is it?
Just guilt by collective association?
Especially if you believe as I do, as I've always said, that the claims, in my opinion, are completely and utterly baseless.
That speculation reached fever pitch again this week because of this weasly lick spittle, Omid Scobie.
He's the client journalist of the Sussexes.
He's always the first to publish their Soviet-style official statements and defend their indefensible deeds.
He's like that guy, Comical Ali.
Do you remember him?
Who fronted up for Saddam Hussein in the Iraq war and would literally say, we've got him on the run, as the American Howitt says, we're coming over his head.
Well, Meghan Markle famously denied briefing Scobie for his last book, Finding Freedom.
But then she was forced a few months after it came out to apologise in court and admit that actually she had.
She briefed one of her aides to go and tell Scobie all the laundry.
So when it emerged that the legend's book contained new details on those race accusations, well, let's just say I've made my own assumptions about where Scobie could have got that information from.
Because it wasn't King Charles.
So that only leaves the other person on the end of that correspondence.
That's Meghan Markle, or maybe Harry, her husband, or maybe one of their mutual friends that Scobie keeps boasting he has.
Scobie says he knew the names of the accused royals, but couldn't use them for legal reasons.
That's in the English version of his book.
Then, as everybody now knows, the names suddenly appeared in a Dutch translation of the book.
And by appearing, I mean, they were sent to journalists who couldn't believe what they were reading.
They went into bookstores where people could buy it.
Well, last night, I decided this was all ridiculous.
And it was time to name the two royals implicated in those racism claims.
They are, as I said last night, King Charles, Prince Charles, as he was then, and Catherine, the Princess of Wales.
I did that for several reasons.
First, the speculation was once again raging out of control, as it has for two and a half years.
Second, it made no sense that Dutch journalists and Dutch people who bought copies before the publisher withdrew them would know these names, members of our royal family, when the British people were prevented from knowing them.
Thirdly, once you know the names, it becomes blindingly obvious to anyone with even half a brain that these allegations are ridiculous.
Whatever your view of the monarchy, I don't think any serious person really believes that anything they've seen or heard from King Charles or the Princess of Wales suggests they have even the tiniest racist bone in their bodies or would judge anybody according to the shade of their skin.
And once again, it's worth remembering what Prince Harry eventually said about these accusations when he was promoting his book.
And before we play the clip, just to remind you, after launching this racist bombshell two and a half years ago, it never got mentioned again.
Not in the six-part Netflix series, which mentioned everything else in their lives.
Not in the 12-part podcast for Spotify that Meghan Markle did, never mentioned.
And it never got mentioned in Harry's over 400-page book.
150,000 words of stuff about his entire life, but not a mention of the supposed racism by members of his own family, which he had launched as a missile against that family on Oprah Winfrey.
So this is what he said to Tom Bradby at ITN at the start of this year when promoting the book where he didn't mention it.
In the Oprah interview, you accuse members of your family of racism.
You don't even...
Well, the British press said that.
Right.
Did Meghan ever mention that they were racist?
She said there were troubling comments about concern about his skin colour.
Right.
Wouldn't you describe that as essentially racism?
I wasn't not having lived within that family.
God, he's such a dim wit, isn't he?
He's just dim as ditchwater.
He literally thinks we're going to watch the clips back from Oprah and not think that she was saying that the royal family had been racist.
How dumb does he think we are?
So Harry performs this dramatic U-turn.
Oh, it was never, we never meant to suggest they were racist.
It was the terrible British press.
They were the ones who said it was racism.
We just meant unconscious bias.
You know what that's become a euphemism for?
We actually haven't got any evidence of someone being racist.
We just think it's kind of unconscious on the sly, right?
It's kind of there, but we can't prove it.
It's like we think they might be.
Yeah, not good enough.
Not when it comes to members of the royal family whose reputations are on a global stage.
So why should I stand back and let a proven liar like Omid Scobie, a man who claims in this book as a fact, that I have regular phone chats with Queen Camilla?
Regular.
Do you know how many times I've spoken to Queen Camilla on the phone in my entire 58-year life?
Zero.
Not once.
It's just not regular.
It's never happened.
We've never had a phone chat.
So he's a liar.
And he lied again about when apparently I called Meghan Markle, Princess Pinocchio, on that fateful last day, Good Morning Britain.
Apparently, Camilla immediately contacted me to thank me on behalf of the firm.
No, she didn't.
Another lie.
Complete lie.
So Scobey prepared to lie about me, about these little things, which don't really amount to a row of beans.
Why should we believe anything else he has to say?
All he's doing is dragging the whole royal family through the mud all over again, reigniting these racism charges because he wants to sell books and make money.
Well, Scobie gave another interview this morning, too this morning, in which he again denied working with Meghan Markle, and he also denied ever using the names in any draft of his book.
I'm as frustrated as everyone else.
I make it very clear in this book that I, in every way possible, want to adhere to the laws surrounding this subject.
It's why I've been very careful in how it's described in the book, and it's why I've never spoken about it beyond what I've said in the public domain before.
The reality is, though, is that this is information that is not privy just to me.
A liar.
A barefaced liar.
He wants us to believe that he only submitted a draft in the English version, which never mentioned the names, but that somebody in the Netherlands got hold of it and added the names and added entire paragraph in one part of this into the manuscript before it went to the printers.
A lethal saboteur.
Who would do that?
Have you ever, ever met any author in history, because I haven't, who's had that happen to their manuscript?
That on the way to the printers in a foreign country like the Netherlands, they've got into the manuscript and changed it without the author knowing anything about it?
No.
It doesn't pass what we call the smell test.
Mr. Scobie stinks when it comes to the smell test.
Now, he thinks I'm completely wrong to assume an earlier version of his book included the names and was sent for translation, only for his lawyers to take them out of the final edition, which I think is the most likely explanation.
It's therefore rather inconvenient for him.
The Dutch translator has told reporters tonight that she'd only translated what was written down on the manuscript.
Removing The Simmering Threat 00:04:10
She said the names of the royals were there in black and white.
I didn't add them.
I just did what I was paid to do, and that was translate the book from English into Dutch.
Now, at this point, the deafening silence from Harry and Meghan becomes a little more than deafening.
it becomes pretty shameful because they usually race to condemn and denounce any press reports that we dislike, particularly if it involves any leaks from private correspondence.
And Meghan Markle, ironically, was forced to admit that she colluded with Omiscoby on his last book in a court action she took against the newspaper over private correspondence with her father.
So why have they remained so silent about Omis Scobie's lies and also about his leaking of the private correspondence between Meghan Markle and King Charles that contain these names?
Is it because they were involved in him getting this information?
Is it because, I don't know, a tooth fairy came down and did it, or Santa Claus, or for want of a better third example, Pinocchio.
The public can, of course, make their own minds up about all of this.
It shouldn't take long.
And the same goes for the baseless accusations of royal racism.
Nobody, I repeat, really thinks King Charles or the Princess of Wales are racist.
Nobody.
That's part of the reason, actually, why I decided to put their names out there.
It's called Lancing the Boyle.
It's called removing what has been a simmering threat deployed by Meghan and Harry and deployed by Omis Scobie as an unspoken threat.
We've got these names and if we don't get what we want, we're going to use them.
Well, now they can't do that.
I've been at the sharp end of British Journals for 30 years.
I've seen royal crises come and go.
I remember after Diana died, everybody predicted that was the end of the monarchy.
But it wasn't.
The monarchy survived and it thrived with our great Queen Elizabeth II and it's doing so again now with King Charles who's doing a brilliant job as the head of our great royal family and the head of the great monarchy.
The only crisis I think that we're facing at the moment, this end game as Omiscoby puts it, is an end game for Omit Scobie.
And potentially, depending on how they respond to this, to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, because this morning, the Times newspaper, the paper of record in this country, the paper read by opinion formers, politicians, those who matter,
said that it was time that King Charles removed the royal titles from a couple who seemed to want to destroy the royal family and the monarchy, but simultaneously make millions and millions of dollars by trading off their royal titles from an institution they keep trashing.
That may well be the beginning of the end game for their royal duplicity.
Okay, let's get into a debate about this.
I'm joined now by Tessa Dunlop, by Dickie Arbiter, by Paul LaRone-Adrian, and by Paul Burrell, who of course was a butler to Princess Dunne.
Let me start with you, Paul.
You're up there in Cheshire.
Your response to all this.
And in particular, start with my decision to name Charles and Kate last night.
I think the British public have a right to know which members of our royal family are being trashed by the Sussexes or their court on the other side of the Atlantic.
And if the information did come from them, and I can't think of anyone else it could have come from, then we should know and we should put up our defences and defend our royal family because Kate has never put a foot wrong and King Charles is doing a great job in the shadows of his mother who was impossible to follow.
So you know, I think you're right, Piers.
I do.
I think we have a right to know and to defend both our king and our future queen.
Okay, Tessa Dunlop, you've been seething away quietly to my left.
I can see you simmering, so simmer away.
Defending The Royal Family 00:15:33
You appall me, Piers.
Occasionally I think, no, he's signed the light.
He's seen the light.
He's no longer crashing on about Harry.
And then this appalling diatribe we've just had to sit through.
You claiming, you lying there, suggesting that you're putting their names out effectively to save the monarchy.
You put their names out for clicks.
You're no better than Omid Scobie.
In fact, you're worse.
You call him a little spittle.
You're a great big gob of phlegm that's just landed on the royal doormat.
I don't know how you slept last night.
I struggled to sleep thinking about what you've done.
I really can't.
And yes, I did.
I didn't know that's just that.
Stop the performative crap.
No, no, no, it's performative crap.
No, let's just hold on to the story.
Just calm down.
Have a civilised conversation.
I'm not going to do that.
I think you didn't sleep over this.
You don't even know these people.
I was properly angry by your hypocrisy.
And they suddenly, because you spend day in, day out your pro-monarchy, the wonderful queen, the wonderful Charles, and then you go and dob Kate and Charles right in it when one's 28.
Yes, you did.
Wait a minute.
Oh, no.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
Oh, yes, you did.
I'll tell you who did that.
Omid Scobie.
Because these names appeared in a draft of his book, which was published in the Netherlands.
And they were under the line.
To Netherlands.
With Title Tattleton.
You popped it on a Murdoch platform.
And now you've just had the gall to suggest that you're not going to be able to do that.
You're on a Murdoch platform right now.
I know I am.
You've got a problem with that.
You're correcting the record.
Do you have a problem with that?
For the record, that was Piers' highly dubious opinion.
I've got a problem with you tonight, Piers.
A real problem.
Why would you have a problem with being on a Murdoch platform?
Because you.
Because what you did was you put those names in.
You're being paid to appear.
Yes, I know, but you took the name of the rumour and you put it on an official platform.
Why are you being paid?
You turned it from fiction to accepted money from a Murdoch platform.
To challenge you about your behaviour in democracy.
And by the way, just the word baseless.
How do you know that Megan's rumours were baseless?
How do you know what she accused of any of it?
But where's the evidence that was baseless?
Where?
Well, obviously, it's very difficult when the two accusers are the chief witnesses.
They couldn't even decide on Opral Winfrey what year these supposed conversations had happened or how many there were, right?
They couldn't decide what year.
It doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Really?
Take notes and write in your diary.
Really?
Let me get a Dickie.
I just want to come in.
You mentioned the Oprah interview, and quite frankly, Megan said that it happened, the conversation happened when she was pregnant.
About 10 minutes later, Harry came into the interview and said it happened before they were married.
So when did it happen?
And did it happen?
There's a big question mark.
I will take issue with you naming yesterday.
And I made that point this morning.
You are a bit of a lawyer to yourself.
It's worse than a lawyer.
Excuse me.
I didn't interrupt you.
Actually, just on the law point, it was entirely lawful what I did.
So I did seek legal advice.
I got very good, sound legal advice.
And actually, there's no question.
I didn't take the law onto myself.
I actually applied the letter of the law.
This information had been published in the Netherlands.
Dutch people were free to read it.
And I took a view.
It was ridiculous.
The British people couldn't be aware of this information.
I also said when I named them that I didn't believe a word of the racist allegations made against them.
I didn't either.
I didn't either.
I didn't believe anything of that interview.
It was just a diatribe of absolute nonsense.
As is the book, Endgame.
And as you rightly say, Endgame, the only person Endgame is Scobie.
But I did take issue in mentioning them last night.
Yes, you have to say the Brits have a right to know.
It's in a Dutch translation.
But there are those who will say agree with you.
There are those who disagree with you.
Well, many of the papers who've held off, apparently, tonight are going to name them.
You gave them no choice.
Actually, you've always got a choice.
Sorry, you always have a choice.
Everybody's got a choice.
Everyone has a choice.
Everyone has a choice when it was published in the Netherlands not to repeat the names, right?
If they're all going to repeat them tonight in the papers, they were just a day after us, right?
And I have a show called Uncensored for a reason.
I don't believe in self-censorship.
I don't believe when the Dutch people can read this information in a book available in bookstores, as some of them had already bought copies, that British people should be denied that information.
And the information, by the way, is hugely significant.
We've waited two and a half years to find out who these members of the royal family were, that Meghan Market.
These weird people are in session piers that you're waiting to announce.
No, no, actually the entire country has.
No, that's just a lot of fun.
It's a misrepresentation of most of the country.
What I actually want to know is he said he had no help from the Sussexes.
And yet, on the other hand, he said he saw the letters.
So how did he see the letters?
How has he got the information?
Exactly.
He's not got it from King Charles.
It's all come from Montecito.
Right, Paula.
Thank you.
Wow.
Okay.
So you're going to be shocked at this, but I actually agree with you that you named that you identified them yesterday.
And let me explain to you why.
Because everybody in the royal circle knew who it was.
All the royal journalists knew who it was.
I've spoken to people who knew who it was.
The fact that they've been named didn't come as a surprise to me because it's fairly common knowledge among journalists.
I actually don't think many journalists knew about Princess of Wales.
I think they thought it was another member of the royal family.
But you accept that.
Well, I was actually surprised, but I was not surprised that, again, it made it even more to me obvious that this is all complete bullcrap.
Exactly.
And that's where you and I actually agree on this, because the fact that they were named in the Netherlands is almost neither here nor there.
The fact is there are people here who knew, and you're right, the British people did have a right to know who it was.
And now we know who it is.
What's going to happen next?
Well, surely action needs to be taken.
And here's where I am disappointed with you.
I'm disappointed with you because we had a monologue of you berating and throwing disdain at Megan, at Harry, at Omid.
Talking as if you have spoken to King Charles, talking as if you have spoken to Kate, spoken as if you have spoken to Camilla, but you haven't.
And so if you haven't, everything that you have said is based on assumption.
And I think you did accept.
And I think you did accept, actually.
No, no.
And everyone's watching.
Let me respond.
No, Let me respond.
Because you actually used the word assumptions in what you were saying.
You are also making very dangerous.
You are also making very dangerous assumptions.
And what you have done this evening is you have set anybody back who is suffering from racism.
Because you are suggesting that.
You are suggesting that because of what somebody else and because of their role in society, that you cannot challenge them.
That is what you have said this evening, and that is dangerous.
No, I tell you that.
It doesn't matter who it is.
It doesn't matter who it is.
I'll tell you who's put back racism.
People who cry wolf about racism.
I don't know if they're crying wolf.
They're despicable.
I don't know if they're crying.
I've been assured.
Assured.
Who by who?
Never you mind.
Oh, Carlotto, you're not going to name your sources.
But I've been assured.
But you named Charles.
Okay, let's name your source.
Who's your source?
I don't reveal any sources.
Right?
But I've been assured.
Then I can't rely on what you're saying.
But more importantly, where is the evidence?
In the letters, no doubt.
Where?
In the letters, no doubt.
In the letters.
What letters?
I would like to see these letters because nobody's scoped.
That's where the evidence is.
So would I say that?
So if you ask where the evidence is, now we may have started something.
And I don't want to wait a thousand years.
I don't want them to be locked away in some cellar somewhere.
I think if you're going to accuse members of the royal family of racism, you should have the decency and the courage to stand up, say who it was, racism, and you talk about you having decency.
And say when they said it.
I'm flabbergasted.
So you're the victim of racism, but you're challenging the victim on having decency.
Who's the victim?
On being decent.
Who's the victim?
Is that what you're saying?
Who's the victim?
Because I know that this is incredibly difficult.
Paula, who's the victim?
Incredibly difficult.
Paula, who's the victim?
I don't know.
But what I do know is that...
So you're talking about unethical victims.
Harry and Megan.
So I'm apparently disrespecting some victim, but you don't know who that is.
You're challenging what they're saying.
It's not true.
How do you know?
Where's the proof?
Two and a half years.
So what we're waiting for is evidence.
And then once you've got your evidence.
And then once you've got your evidence.
Will you apologize for racist?
Piers, put up.
Once you've got your evidence, will you apologise?
Yeah.
You'll apologise to Michelle.
Don't get me wrong.
Will you apologise to Megan?
Megan Markle produces actual evidence of racism.
Let's see it.
And if it's proven, that King Charles the Princess of Wales were racist about her baby, I will apologise to her.
Let me tell you, I can say that with real confidence, because it ain't going to happen.
Because you haven't apologised yet for the fact that you were wrong about the threats that were made on her life in terms of all the far-right groups on the terms of who.
I didn't talk about that.
She said that they affected her mental health and you said that she was lying.
No, no, I didn't.
This is again, you're misquoting me.
I didn't say that.
I said I didn't believe she went to a senior member of the royal household and said she was feeling suicidal and they wouldn't allow her to get help.
And no evidence for that has ever been produced and nor has that allegation ever reappeared in the Netflix series, the Harry book or the podcast.
It didn't happen.
So you accepted if they happened, they would have been repeated.
Do you accept that she suffered from her mental health?
Do you say that?
I had no idea.
I wasn't there, was I?
All I know is she did not go to a senior member of the royal household saying I'm suicidal.
And they said, you can't get help.
You've just said you don't know about her mental health.
And yet you said with a surety earlier in this conversation that her claims about racism, about the questions of the colour of her baby, they were baseless.
How can you say that with a surety when you weren't there?
Where's the proof?
You weren't there.
Where's the proof?
Unless she was sitting there with a ticket.
Where's the proof?
There may not be proof.
And that's the point.
Let's take a short break.
Let's talk a short break and we'll come back.
I mean, hysteria is fine to a point.
It's a bit performative.
You pretend hysterical.
Try and stay on point.
No, no, no.
I made my point.
You can have an argument without being hysterical.
It's a bit pathetic.
Let's come back after the break.
We're talking about Omit Scobey's so-called under the microscope.
No, just because you're hysterical.
Including the smear that you made about me in his interview this morning.
It's coming up.
Look, when it comes to Omit Scobey, the author at the heart of the current royal supposed racism scandal, there's often a wide disparity between his version of the truth and what the rest of us call the actual truth.
In today's interview with this morning, for example, he was at it again, spewing more lies about me.
Piers Morgan was saying that he had no conversations with Camilla.
He's called you an outright liar.
What would you say to him?
I don't know what he says.
I only go by the reporting that I have.
I also, as I was researching this, and as you see cited in the references at the back, he's spoken a lot about his friendship with Camilla, the Queen.
So listen, I don't know what to make of that, but I only go by the information that I have.
He's also said a lot of things about me and the story and so on that is also not true.
So I don't think, I don't find that particularly credible.
He's also said stuff about Megan in the past as well.
So, you know.
Yes.
Yeah.
He also wrote an op-ed this week saying that they should be burned alive.
Did I?
Wow, that's amazing.
I wrote an op-ed piece this week for newspapers published which said, I want Megan and Harry burned alive.
That's quite something.
Why did no one report that?
How am I still here?
Why haven't I been cancelled?
I was saying they should be burned alive.
Wow, Omid.
Here's what I actually said.
I can't speak for Charles, Camilla, William or Kate.
But if two close members of my family had spent the past few years trashing the rest of us on global media platforms, the only way I'd want to spend Christmas with them is if they were human chestnuts roasting on my open fire.
That's my family I'm talking about.
If some of my family did what they did, I'd have them as human chestnuts on a roaring fire.
Where does it say I'd burn Meghan and Harry alive, Omid?
It's just more even lies, isn't it, mate?
I see right through you.
All right, well, I'm back with my pack.
Let me come to Paul Burrell again.
Paul, my problem with Omar Scobie is I think he's just a scammer.
I think he goes over all the stuff that's already out there and he puts two and two together and often gets five, six, seven, eight.
I don't think he'd know the truth if it slapped him round his Botox chops.
No, well, Dickie and I both have lived with the royal family for many, many years.
We know all the major players.
We know that there are no racists within the royal family.
How could our late queen be racist when she was head of the Commonwealth?
I mean, it's just ridiculous, this conversation, because I bet this never happened.
They must have dreamt it up one night.
I mean, when they pressed that button on the Oprah Winfrey show, the racist button, they never pressed reset.
And our dear late queen went to her grave worrying, thinking there was some upset in the House of Windsor.
Now, Harry should be ashamed of that for upsetting his grandmother, because all of this is just nonsense.
And there are no racists in the royal family.
Dickie, you know that.
Let's bring in Dickie.
I mean, I actually think I made that point also in my op-ed, where I said, you know, the worst thing about this for me is that Harry spent two years allowing the racism charge to fly around the world, causing a lot of damage, especially in places like the Commonwealth.
And we saw that.
And only then, after two years, does he clarify things, right, and say, oh, I didn't mean racism.
We meant unconscious bias.
By which time, Philip and the Queen had both died, believing that from a member of their own family, their grandson, that the family had been accused of racism.
And it depends who you talk to about interpreting unconscious bias.
Now, Paul Burrell mentioned about the royal family not being racist.
The king has made it his life's mission to unite ethnic minorities.
He goes to churches, to cathedrals, to temples, to synagogues, to mosques, and he visits communities.
That is his mission in life, to unite the kingdoms.
100%.
100%.
There's never been a whiff of racism about Charles ever.
None.
So to accuse him of racism is absolutely.
And he's the one that should be libelised, Scobie, for even suggesting that.
I agree.
I think they should sue him.
I really do.
I think that this thing hasn't appeared in Netherlands by chance.
But they won't sue.
Of course they won't sue, because if they did, then question those questions would have to be answered, wouldn't they?
And are they prepared to answer those questions?
And I'm not sure they are.
And let's be frank.
We've got this problem today because they failed to deal with it at the time.
This should have been dealt with two years ago.
How do you deal with it?
By sitting down and thrashing it out.
Accusing Charles Of Racism 00:06:34
The two people who've sold every single morsel of private information you've exchanged with them.
Everything.
Even down to Harry.
You're acting as if the royal family never disclose information.
No, not.
A royal source here.
That's not what I'm saying.
A royal source there.
They are both as bad as each other.
We even know that the households are in the future.
Which member of the royal family has ever done to the royal family in the monarchy?
What Harry and Meghan have done?
Tell me.
Careful what you say about the household, because I was part of it.
What we are being told is that one household is pitted against another household.
That's what we read about.
Sorry, who has attacked the royal family and the monarchy in anything like the way these two have done?
As you have said, as you have said, the royal family have been through so much.
There was the same thing that happened in relation to Diana.
Which member of the royal family in the last hundred years has attacked the royal family and the monarchy like these two have done for the last three, four years?
Give me a name.
We do live in a different area.
I'm asking Paul a request to power is now accepted.
I'm asking Paul a request.
Are you suggesting that what Harry and Megan have said is somehow different to what the troubles that Diana went through?
Absolutely.
How?
When did she ever criticise the monarchy?
She suffered.
She never criticised the monarchy.
Because she didn't feel Pierce.
She didn't have Paul Burrough will justify this as I will.
She was a great supporter.
She was a great supporter of the monarchy.
She would do nothing to harm the monarchy.
What she did in her interview and what she did in her book was damaging to her husband.
Correct.
But not to the monarchy.
Do you know what the irony is?
I mean, we have to say that I'm afraid, that is a nuance that is going to be lost on people.
So she can speak badly about Prince Charles, but Harry can't speak badly about his father.
It's his father.
Let's just remind ourselves.
This is about a family.
This is not about an institution.
This is about the institution.
He is critical.
This is the problem.
His father is the king.
This is the problem, isn't it?
Of course it's about the institution.
He is talking about his father.
And we are forgetting that because what we want to do is protect the institutions.
And you can't do that.
If I may, represent the institution.
It's too sexy, Dickie, because if people like you and Piers and Paul Burrell, who go on and on about how much you love the monarchy, and I'm actually a monarchist too, if we really wanted to future-proof the monarchy, if Piers really, I genuinely believe, Piers, that you sat there because what you first and foremost cared about was the monarchy, you wouldn't have started this diatribe mudslinging in the way that you did.
You would have gently pushed them and encouraged them to look within their own walls to actually, yes, improve their diversity quota.
Sorry, you're encouraging.
When it's relations with their foreign realms, and reparations.
Just to be clear, after your little tantrum tonight, you're telling me I should have been calm.
It's a joke.
You wound up because you sat there with your paragraphs.
You're going to throw a little toddler to me, denying you.
You don't get to lecture me about being calm.
Forgive me, can I just respond to the question about what do you do?
Because there are lots of people who have the allegation of racism thrown against them.
And I appreciate, I really do, that it is hard to have that allegation thrown against you because it is hard to defend.
Piers, you know that.
You've had the allegation thrown at you enough.
When you watched it, when you watched what they said on Oprah, there's no ambiguity that they were accusing them of being racist, is there?
If it was me, if it was me saying that, I would be, in my heart, worried that I was suffering from racism.
Right, thank you.
I would.
That's my point.
Okay, and then they downgraded it to unconscious bias.
But as you can see, actually, you agree with me.
No, don't cut me off.
As Dickie has said, unconscious bias has a definition that can also include racism.
Unconscious biases that we ask people to do.
Piers thinks it's all baseless because Piers knows best.
We're going to take a break, come back with a new pack, fortunately.
No offense to you, Dickie, or to you, Paul.
Thoroughly enjoyed having you two on tonight.
Next, will the resurfacing of these racism allegations damage the royal family on a global stage?
Or would it clear their reputations?
This is what I believe will now happen.
Debating that next.
Talk about the Royal Race Row has been reignited by the claims in Erman Scobie's book.
My decision to announce the names behind the claims has made headlines around the world, from India to New Zealand and the United States, where of course Harry and Megan reside, the British royal family, is a global brand, which is precisely why Megan's original claims were so damaging.
Now we know much more about the allegations.
Does anyone really still believe them?
Well, join me to discuss this.
I'll talk to you contributor to Esther Cracker, political journalist Ava Santina, and from New York Talk TV presenter Tricia Goddard.
All right, Esther, we just had a rather animated debate about all this, which I thought was a little unnecessarily over the top.
What's your view about all this?
I think the people's desire to believe whether the royal family are racist or not stems from what they originally feel about the royal family to begin with.
If you think the royal family is an antiquated institution that's rooted in white supremacy, of course you're happy to believe that the racism allegations were true.
If you're a staunch monarchist, you're like, they can never do any wrong.
And for the rest of us, we're thinking, okay, what's the evidence?
Because at the end of the day, the monarch is still our head of state and it is important that they're obviously not bigoted individuals.
And that's the camp that I fall in.
At the end of the day, I don't see any evidence of racism.
I've said this before.
I'm from a Ghanaian family.
If I was having a child with someone who wasn't of my race, my family would have conversations about what the child would look like in a jovial way.
Of course.
And I think there was an element of bad faith.
Of course.
So if it was that, there's nothing wrong with that anyway.
But we don't know that.
We don't, no.
Come on.
Like, come on.
No, I'm not sure.
There's been a conversation behind doors about, you know, the child's skin colour, obviously.
Okay, answer me this.
Answer me this.
Megan's mother was in an interracial relationship, which Megan is a product of.
Megan's family would have undoubtedly had conversations.
Oh, what's Megan going to look like?
I wonder what she's going to look like since your husband is white.
Would that have made her family racist?
Do you think that I can't answer that?
Would that have made Megan's family?
I can't answer it with this point.
Do you not think that is skewed by your now with the British monarchy?
And they are not human beings.
But you don't believe that.
Misunderstanding Cultural Differences 00:03:21
You don't believe that was the way that conversation was going to be.
Because I wasn't there.
None of us were there.
Because anything that makes sense, Charles and Kate, of all people, two people who dedicated their public life to actually being completely inclusive, never said a racist word in their lives, that suddenly they're going to be saying, I hope it's not too brown.
Hold on, let me answer that.
Let me answer that.
I'm going to be extremely careful with what I say because of libel law, but I do think that there is some racism in the royal family.
Not necessarily.
That's fine.
I'm not going to put that on any individual.
But yes, I could imagine a world that's where there are...
Sorry, let me bring in Tricia who's been waiting patiently.
Tricia, look, let's try and have a sensible conversation about this.
I've just watched the Sussexes backtrack, backtrack, backtrack.
It's gone from racism, and we heard it from their own mouths on Oprah, to unconscious bias.
No one's produced a shred of actual evidence here.
You know, I'm sorry, I'm calling, I'm calling, it's nonsense.
You know, Piers, I had a really interesting conversation with my kids who are biracial.
And they have people in their family, extended family, who have used words or little phrases that anybody else would just think, oh, doesn't matter.
But because of their personal experiences, they've had to sit down with those people and say, you know, this term is not acceptable.
I know you think it's a joke.
I know you think we should lighten up, but within our family, it hurts.
It's painful because of our experience.
Now, if I can say that there's somebody out, you know, people in our family have had those conversations, and yes, they're hurtful.
If somebody comes along after the fact, two years down the track, and makes it all public, and it blows it up, it becomes even more painful.
And people, when you talk about backtracking, can I rephrase that?
Sometimes we can learn.
I've watched you grow, if I can put it that way.
We're never too old to learn.
I've seen you learn, as I have, with lots of different things around Israel, Gaza.
We learn, we learn, we learn.
What if, let me just put this to you.
What if, since they initially came out with what an American sees as racism, and I do think there are cultural differences.
Just because we're all brown doesn't mean to say we all think the same.
But what if from there they've learned?
And it's not so much as backpedaling, because I'm just thinking of family members within ours.
It's like, oh, okay, yeah, I shouldn't have said that.
Or maybe they weren't being, they didn't mean to be racist, but they didn't even realize they're so used to being casual about it, they didn't realize it would hurt us.
But I have to say about Omid Scobie, he is like the uncle who turns up two years after the fact at a Christmas party and shows off the messages that you texted them two years ago when you were drunk.
I mean, when I heard this book was coming out, can I say this?
Are we uncensored?
Should I be honest?
What I really thought?
Yes.
I thought, what the fuck?
I was like, oh, for Christmas.
I'd like to apologise to any viewers offended, but we are uncensored.
And you know what?
Sorry.
That's exactly what I thought too.
I just haven't said it yet.
It's like the horse has bolted.
Casual Racial Undertones 00:04:54
It's at the knackard's yard.
It's glue.
And we, I mean, I don't believe anything was done with mal intent.
I think there was a lot of misunderstanding.
I do think there are terms and questions.
And it depends where you're brought up.
But if there are questions and people are talking about what a baby's colour are, for one family, it may be done in a light-hearted way.
In another family, if there's already friction, it might be the twist of the knife.
All right, before we go to the break, I want to play a clip of Prince Harry on the Stephen Colbert show.
The ginger gene is a strong one.
Look at that.
Both of us done that.
The Spencer gene is very, very strong.
I actually really genuinely thought at the beginning of my relationship that should this go the distance and then we have kids, that there's no way the ginger gene will stand up to my wife's genes, but I was wrong.
Wow, isn't he speculating about the skin colour of his baby?
Wow.
Let's take a break.
We'll come back and debate that after the break.
I labelled you douche of the day.
Not sure if you've been a lead athlete before, but it's a problem.
Never seen an Australian sulk like Kirios.
You responded, eat and sometimes you are a bit.
You're a sicker.
Nothing you say confess me if he is nothing.
Maybe I'll take it to the quarter.
We'll sort it out once and for all.
Little treat for you tomorrow night, a little extra Piers Morgan Uncensored with Nick Kirios for the hour from 8 to 9 p.m. tomorrow night.
It is a cracker.
It's a proper like tennis match.
Serve volley, serve volley, smash, serve volley, smash, and so on for the hour.
Welcome back.
I've got Esther, Ava, and Tricia still with me, of course.
So Esther, where do we go from here?
See, I kind of feel from the moment I revealed these names, it would trigger a process which would actually just lance this boil once and for all.
It would all get out there.
How do you think the Sussexers are going to respond?
Well, I think they're going to regret how they went about it because I do think this is all just a play of bad faith, actually, and the whole interaction that happened.
The British public have had like three years to ruminate over this, to think, is it possible?
Actually, of all the things that are coming up, because they did multiple interviews, Spare came out where he didn't even mention it.
That's the weirdest thing to me.
It sounds like much ado about nothing.
So I think most people are like, and now that the names are out, it's like, oh, come on, no.
I mean, Ava, I did think it's quite extraordinary that you launched this bombshell.
You brand the family racist.
It's quite clearly.
We've played the clips back.
And then you don't mention it in a 400-page book.
You don't mention it in your six-part Netflix series about your life.
You don't mention it in the Spotify podcast.
None of it.
It's just airbrushed.
But how could they mention it?
I mean, it's quite easy to do.
No, but come on.
You did an interview with Oprah about it.
The lines of power are skewed against them, aren't they?
They can't come out and call the king a racist.
They can't do it.
No, but they can detail the interaction.
They can detail the reaction, interaction.
And that's the thing.
They're still very much at the behest of the royal family.
So as you said, they're not.
As you said, they trade under their titles, they trade under their names, and they also do need certain things from the royal family.
They also had, you know, the Queen would have still been alive when that Oprah interview went out and they knew that they couldn't completely blow all of their relationship with the family.
But clearly, this has had some very significant effect on Megan.
And we are looking at a woman who is claiming racism.
And I just think that we should, as the public, take that seriously.
Yeah, I'm afraid we've taken it seriously.
And it turned out that two years later, they say, oh, we didn't mean to say racism.
Literally, Mario.
We didn't mean to say racism.
The press said that.
I mean, he's such a liar.
Let's go back to Tricia.
Is it my issue with this, Tricia?
Every day people are exposed to real racism.
Real, damaging racial injustice, racial inequality.
There's all sorts of, hang on.
You can talk about, and people often find it easier to understand somebody being beaten up or hit as I have been purely because of my skin colour as a child.
Okay.
But there's microaggressions.
There's lots of little things that weigh up and affect people's mental health.
And again, if you come from a culture, if you come from a world like Hollywood, where you're protected from all of that, where half the things that get written in British papers aren't allowed to be printed in US newspapers, you come in for a bit of a shock when you come up against the British culture and the British black culture.
So one person's racism, if you feel it, you know, it's like the old conversations we had 10, 15 years ago about when is it really sexual assault?
No, it wasn't really.
She took it the wrong way.
And I agree totally when you say if somebody says they are hurt by something that has racial undertones, it doesn't matter what you think.
Why We Must Stop 00:01:31
It matters what the person who knows the details, which we don't, if they have been hurt by it, they've been hurt by it.
Why do we have to have a discussion about it?
End off.
Because I don't think it happened.
Different ways.
Well, it doesn't matter really what you think, does it?
Because it doesn't really matter.
Well, actually, it does.
It's somebody who pays their wages.
Somebody who pays the royal family's wages, it does.
Not anymore.
Well, not those anymore, but I did it at the time.
But hang on, hang on.
But Piers, I've been paying up until 2015 money back to people who enslaved my forebears.
So, I mean, we all pay for something we might necessarily not necessarily believe in 100%.
But, you know, it does it matter.
If it hurt her, it hurt her.
I think it's also hurt King Charles and Kate.
I mean, that's the point.
No, I don't think so.
Of course it has.
I don't think so.
What could be a worse allegation?
Why do you rush over?
So one of the main reasons that I applauded you for naming them yesterday was because I think the rest of the British media didn't do it because they would like to keep some form of relationship with them and they were frightened about what the repercussions would be.
But now you're sitting here defending.
And you weren't there for that.
But Ava, Ava, why aren't you defending the people who are not going to be able to do that?
You've seen no proof that it happened.
Oh, but it's not.
Come on, Harry.
I agree.
You know what?
We've got to leave it there.
You're invited.
King Charles, the Princess of Wales, Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, you're all invited.
Come on at the same time for a gigantic Piers Morgan uncensored.
That's it for tonight.
Thank you to my brilliant pack.
What if you're up to?
Keep it on sense signal.
Export Selection