“It’s ALL Bull***!” EXCLUSIVE: Piers Morgan To SUE Earl Spencer Over Diana Book

I'm not a vengeful, resentful person. I'm just an eyewitness to history. We now know purely from what he's written about me that he's telling lies in the book, period. That's a typo, it's a day-ever. It's a typo, at all, isn't it? It's a long attack on me based on an entirely fault premise. It costs a lack of credibility over everything else that he's written. These are basic facts that could have been checked to put your interpretation on it in that way, in that hysterical level of hyperbole. That, to me, undermines any credibility. I don't believe him. It was like a nucleus trait at the heart of the monarchy because it's almost he wants to destroy it. I really don't think anyone cares about Spencer. I think Spencer is irrelevant. Money grabbing the salacious rubbish. Did you just accuse somebody of writing money grabbing salacious rubbish? I'm just going to part that there. Can you imagine anybody making a profit out of their brother or sister's death asked Earl Spencer in 1998? It's so low, it's inconceivable. I'll never profit from Diana's death. Well, as the king himself said, grief can cloud memory and affect judgment. And so it seems can three high-profile divorces a major privacy lawsuit and the immense cost of maintaining a vast property empire. Like Prince Harry before him, Earl Spencer has chosen the path of profit over principle. A book which rails against the media's invasion of royal privacy has managed to invade royal privacy in the most grotesque way imaginable. Private conversations with the king at a moment of unimaginable grief and shock, which allegedly happened almost 30 years ago or reproduced with that context or response. The king says Spencer sounded giddly elated like a lottery winner after Diana's death. And the most damaging allegation of all that he told her brother, we will forget her soon enough. Readers who will include Prince William and Harry are left with the unmistakable impression that their father, our king, is a callous and uncaring ogre. Earl Spencer and his promotional interview with Laura Coonsburg and a BBC for posterously claimed that he's written the book purely as a duty to history. I have a duty, you know, I was an eyewitness to history. And it's my duty in my the final season of my life. This was very much a spur for me to write this now was both my parents died in their 60s. I'm in my 60s. I'm aware of mortality and I wanted to just put things down once and for all that were true. And part of the spine of my book is the construction of my eulogy. I know this is not a threat, it's a fact. I know lots of things about the king, which I chose not to include in the book because they were not relevant. I'm a historian. I've worked for decent news organizations like yourself. And it was just my duty to lay it out. I'll water load a crap. Three times he refers to his duty as a historian. I just needed to put down the true facts, he says. Well, many allies of his majesty have called into question these facts ever since the most salacious accusations were serialized by the Daily Mail. Many world commentators and experts have lined up to say, "They simply don't ring true. "The king himself issued a furious rebuke "that is almost without precedent." But in essence, this has always been about opinions. Regulations may vary after all. Well, until now, because I can exclusively reveal on uncensored, the Elf Spencer's book contains fabricated inaccuracies, which will strike to the heart of his credibility. Spencer recounts how he personally call round the tabloid newspaper editors to uninvite them from Princess Diana's funeral after they had all been invited. I remember this well because I was one of them. He says on the book, they realize they were unable to be rude to the brother of the much more princess, the only one who sounded surly, as opposed to merely confused or embarrassed, was Piers Morgan of the Mirror, who snarled with annoyance before he hung up. Well, Spencer then explained why I may have been surly with him. I assumed Morgan must be feeling particular guilt, he writes, because four years earlier, he and his Sunday Mirror counterpart, had published photographs taken with hidden cameras by a Jimona, they were of Diana working out in a leotard. This was such an intolerable invasion of her privacy that Diana instructed lawyers to sue the Mirror group and to block further use of the images. Meanwhile, he says, a Dutch newspaper splashed one of the pictures on his front page, and an American tabloid bought a selection of them with which to titillate its readers. The Jimona eventually made 300,000 pounds from his salacious stolen images. Well, Spencer continues, for a while, it looked as though the Mirror group would be brazen enough to allow the case to go to court, calculating that whatever their newspapers lost financially in trial would be more than recoup through global publicity. Despite significant public outrage at the pictures and loss of revenue in some major companies, withdrew their advertising from the Mirror group, Morgan's triumphant spokesman, boasted that sales of his paper and of the Sunday Mirror had each risen by more than 100,000 copies since splashing the intrusive shots. But after that, public curiosity turned into general revulsion and both paper circulation dropped significantly. This commercial setback persuaded the Mirror group to fold. Spencer continues, it agreed to pay Dynas legal costs of around a million pounds and was obliged to further acknowledge its guilt by making donations of 200,000 pounds to her chosen charities. He then says, in the immediate aftermath of Dynas death, Morgan was one of four tabloid Editors' names shamed and photographed in an article looking at who might be held responsible for the paparazzi's role. It must have been an extraordinary sensation for this powerful quartet that were used to dishing out such treatment without ever receiving it in return. Well, this is all pretty extraordinary stuff, isn't it? Very dammit, particularly about me. I come across in the most despicable manner imaginable. There's just one problem. It's all bullshit and very, very easy bullshit for me to prove it. The photographs which he says that I published were printed by the Sunday Mirror on November the 7th, 1993. I joined the Daily Mirror in October 1995. In fact, at the time of the gym pictures, I was doing a showbiz column on the Mirror's Archrival the Sun, about as far removed from responsibility for the Mirror's scoop as I could possibly have been. While Spencer was estranged from Diana, living in South Africa at the time of her death, as editor of the Daily Mirror, I had lunch with her at Kensington Palace and with Prince William. After that, it wasn't uncommon for her to call my office or the meter-run stories by her, which she would then amend to make sure that they were perfectly phrased and accurate. Diana knew how to use the media, just as we the media absolutely used Diana to sell newspapers. And ironically, by that time in her life, I think I was probably talking to her more often than he was. My question, though, is this? If our Spencer can be so incredibly defamatorily wrong about such basic facts involving me, well, why should we believe anything else that he puts in this book? He pointedly refers to the cancerous treatment of Harry and Meghan by the press, while shamelessly using the Harry and Meghan playbook of putting their truth before the truth, and apparently not even thinking that using the word cancerous during a lengthy attack on King Charles, who has cancer and is 77 years old, might not be the cruel list of ironies. Well, his book is out tomorrow. I'll expect there may be many more examples of brazen falsity after what Ivan covered about purely an entry about myself. In the meantime, El Spencer, you'll be hearing and your publishers from my lawyers, because I would like the complete lie that you've published about me and those photographs to be removed from your book. And I would like a donation to be made to the King's trust for the damage that you've caused with your lie. After all, to quote somebody, you can't dish it out without getting it in return, right? Well, who better to speak to first than the host of The Royals Uncensored, the most fast-rising and popular Royals YouTube channel in the world now, Joe Elvin, Katie Nichol and Grant Harold will join me in the studio. Well, Katie, interesting moment, because all I did was say to my team, hey, can you get me any entries about me? I've had a long checkered history with El Spencer, not always bad. He came to a lunch at the mirror at the paper that he lambast, and he was very charming to everybody. But I also had other run-ins with him, but he planted fake stories when I was at the news of the world to try and draw out a source, allow those fake stories to be published. He's a weird guy who thinks he knows all about the media and how it works and he likes to manipulate them as well as he himself has undoubtedly been used by the media over the years. But the point about this book is that in the end, we have to believe El Spencer. There's no actual evidence outside of his word that anything he says about the conversations with King Charles actually happened the way he says to them. I cannot believe that within hours of Princess Diana being killed in a car crash, Prince Charles is sounding as giddy as a lottery winner. I think that he's just made that up. And we're already seeing movement by El Spencer. Now, I'm saying, well, the tone of somebody was a bit off. Well, that's very different from saying He was sounding like a lottery winner. which is about the most offensive thing he could possibly account up with about Charles in the aftermath of Dynast death. But the reason that I think my discovery about what he said about me is significant is because it's so easily checkable. Easily checkable. You just Google when the gym story came out and when the settlement was made and when I joined the Daily Mirror and you would establish immediately, I wasn't there at the time. I wasn't there every other two years. Had nothing to do with me. And yet he's launched this big attack on me and my character and my reputation over this intrusive story. And I'm not claiming to be a journalistic angel. But on this particular thing that he says about me, he's a hundred percent wrong. It's a lie and it calls into question to me. If that's just me checking what he said about me and I can demonstrate how it's a lie so quickly and so unequivocally, then why should we believe anything else he says? Well, I think you are right and it casts a lack of credibility over everything else that he's written. Joe and I was speaking earlier about the claim that apparently the Queen had some sort of romantic liaison with Johnny Spencer. Well, if you checked your facts, it was already married and with young children at the time. So, you know, the, as you say, these are basic facts that could have been checked and someone's dropped the ball here because of course you then will analyse everything. Well, how accurate is this? The problem that you have or one has or the palace has in fact, with probably the most damaging part of the book, is that conversation in the days after Diana's death with the whole issue over whether those boys were going to walk. All I will say about it and we talked about it on Royals Uncensored is that Charles was not in charge at the time. He wasn't calling the shots. It was the then Duke of Edinburgh Prince Philip who decided that the boys should walk because they would have been very aggressive. I don't think they should have been made to do that. Personally, I didn't like it at the time. Well, that was, but it was down to Prince Philip who wasn't down to Charles. But the truth is, William had to do it too, right? I didn't think either of them should have had to do it. But to me, that's all right. That's a dispute they had about whether the boys should do it. I'm sure tensions were running incredibly high. And to that point, to that exact point, and I spent a lot of the weekend speaking to people who know Charles, many of whom have been on the receiving end of Charles and he is in a moment of great tension. But this goes beyond tension. This is utter devastation. With guilt and shock and everything else thrown in, we have all said things that we don't mean. Even if he had said it, and I don't know if he did, because there are only two people who know. Well, let me just try and illustrate what he claims happened. Within hours of Dyna being killed in a car crash, the mother of his two children. Charles is talking to her brother, who he has hardly ever talked to on the phone before. And he goes, "Wow, I've won the lottery!" It's the tone of his voice. Really? We're supposed to believe that Charles reacted like that. Well, what's puzzling me about this whole idea is that, you know, there are a few people coming out and defending Earl Spencer. And the tone of the defense is, well, he's a forensic historian. This is not. Wasn't that forensic with me, was he? Well, there's that. It's just not the rational language of somebody who claims to be looking at the facts of the era, to put your interpretation on it in that way, with that hysterical level of hyperbole. That, to me, undermines any credibility with this whole idea that I'm just here to report the facts. Yeah. Girl, what are you making this? I don't believe him. I mean, I think I said the other day on "Uncensored", it was like a nuclear straight at the heart of the monarchy, because it's almost he wants to destroy it. Yeah. And you know when he said about Dyna being forgotten, I don't believe that, because. I mean, I was talking to the ladies I learned about this, that I remember at Hygrove, those many memories of Princess Diana, I'm sure you're aware of this, around. The King didn't try to make a disappear. She was talked about. And one thing I'd like to share with you that I've never talked about is under instruction of the Princess Wales. Dyna had a lot of items after her death. He asked me to log them, photograph them. They've all been kept safely security for the future of his both women harry and their grandchildren. So why would you do that? About somebody you want forgotten or not even talked about it? It didn't make sense, that's why I don't believe him. There's been a debate, Katie, about the fact that Charles issued a statement via Bucky and Palace, while we do not come in on books as a matter of principle, his majesty is mindful that the painter, Fraternal Grief, can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss. I actually was glad he made that statement. I think it's as close as he would come to saying this is crap. It's not how this conversation went. We don't have a tape of the conversation. He's given no context for the way the whole conversation went. There is no context. There is nothing. And the other part of this is, well, what's his motivation for this book? It's not history. It's obviously money. Otherwise, he'd be giving all the profits to one of Dyna's preferred charities. If he's really about setting the historical record straight, and by the way, you have to remove the bit about me to do that, because that's not history, that's invention. So how many more of those are in there? But if you're going to say it's about history, fine. Give all the profits to one of Dyna's charities. But he won't, because actually he's cash strapped. Everybody knows this. This is obviously why he's doing this. He's going to make millions. And as that clip, you know, not the clip, the words I read out at the start of the monologue, he made it crystal clear in the aftermath of her death. What brother or sister would ever seek to make money? Well, that's out of her death. This is exactly what he's doing. It would be outrageous. It's exactly what he's doing. And what concerns me to Jo's point about him sort of reasserting himself as a historian, is then you come to the real damage done by this. I'm not sure Buckingham Palace was right to issue the statement. I disagree with you on that, because I think they have fueled this. If they'd said nothing. I don't agree. If they said nothing, it would have blown massive anyway. And at least it couldn't be any bigger than it is. But my point is that what he is doing is he is reshaping history in a way of the King Cup. But people are now questioning, well, is he a really compassionate king? It's interesting. Has he got everything? The poll suggests that vast majority of the public believe King Charles not Charles Spencer. I posted a thing on Instagram about this yesterday. I was struck by this unbelievable majority of comments were pro the King. Yeah. Not Earl Spencer. A lot of people pointing out Spencer's hypocrisy, Joe, which is it's obvious. It's laid out by his own words. But there's also the fact that, you know, the whole point for me is to try and skewer the reputation of the King because he's trying to destroy it. Because what do we need the record setting straight on Diana? What is it that we don't know about that she was a beloved humanitarian, that she was treated badly by the royal family? We know all that. It's complicated. But there's a thing. What about the stuff? There's a thing he builds threat in here. Yes. He says, I know lots of things about the King. I chose not to. Yeah. It's just like a little mafia, like a little mafia boss, you know. I know stuff about you sunshine. So be careful because I might come back and say it more. Also, Grant, there's the extraordinary revelation or a many extraordinary revelations which defy I believe. One is where he has lunch with Diana after the divorce and when she tells him I'm going to get divorced and says, you know, one of the reasons he's in love with his valet. Who we know. I mean, I know who that is supposedly about that rumor. It did the rounds at the time. It was a male valet. It's all from my knowledge, absolute bullshit again. I think he knows it's bullshit. I think he's just put it in there as an incendiary thing to make it look like King Charles might be gay or whatever it may be, right? And I just think again, he's done this quite deliberately. He's chosen the wording and the anecdotes, which can never be disproven, right? To float them out there just to damage Charles. He's waited 30 years. He says he's not being vengeful and he's not being resentful, but it is hard to imagine more resentful, vengeful things to put in a book 30 years after an event. When you're targeting one guy who's now the king of this country and you're trying to take him down, and I think it's despicable. I think we, as you said, we have an idea who he's talking about and it's nonsense because the thing is this individual was very protective of the king. I believe that he would have protected him at the time from Spencer as well. And I think that's where he's lashing out in that's what I. Do we really think that Diana would be loving this bit of crass gossip 30 years on just being chucked out there? That, to me, doesn't seem to be honouring your sister either. No. And he keeps saying Diana would have loved all this. No, she wouldn't. Well, Diana would have actually liked him to have looked after his nephews, which is what he said he was going to do. Well, he says he's not surprised for William or Harry, but I. I don't believe that, yeah. I don't believe William knew this was all coming. No, apparently William didn't know it was coming. How much Harry knew we don't know, but they spent time together. Did they really want it to be aired in public? Can I also just mention, from the money side of things, I don't know if you knew, but a few years ago, many years ago, I was an author, and I bought one of the gay books and asked him to say it, and he'd broke his wrist. Now, remember, he said to me, "I'm so grown, I can't say this." However, if you pay me £25 and buy my book, then I'll say it, and I remember think this is all about money. It all went a lot from El Spencer when it comes to raising a quid. Yeah. My God. Well, he's done well out of this. I mean, we were wondering just how much he's been paid in terms of serialization. Well, this is the other irony. This is the other irony. It's like, you know, being paid by the male. It wasn't that long ago that he was suing the male. Well, not only. I mean, also, by the way, one of the other four editors you rang at the time of the funeral was yet to serve a daily male. Right? if you know that here he is giving his book about all that to the Daily Mail, who I don't blame the mail at all by the way, it's a cracking royal scoop and we've all been gouging all over it. So you're queued off to the way the mail has run with it and they've been very banished, they've been running people their own staff saying I don't believe this, which I think is to their great credit. So I'm in queued off to the mail. But there's so many hypocrite, you gave the first interview on TV in the UK to the BBC who he just had the whole war with over the business that will be Martin Bashir. So you know, it seems to me he hates it. So he he put Diana in front of Bashir. Yes, he did address his regrets over it, but it seems incredibly one-sided. It's led, I'm told, over the weekend, some very, very difficult conversations between the King and William to your point. I agree. I don't think William. I am told, on good authority, they are spitting blood, spitting blood at the audacity of this to masquerade it as history when it's just a hatchet job specifically designed to make the British people hate King Charles. And the reality is actually they're not reacting the way Earl Spencer hoped they would. And what I hope by putting my little part of this out into the public domain is to simply show people when he says you can believe every word I've put in here. Actually, you can't because purely the few paragraphs he's putting about me are completely invented. So if that has happened to me, then what else has he done that, who else has he done that to in the book? Has he also got it wrong about the calls with King Charles, for example, right? Has his memory let him down with that like it did with me, right? Is he two years out of date with that? And we'll see. I mean, I think once people gorge over the whole book, I won't be the only one who's done this to. Yeah. Well, we know from six days. Where are the fat checkers? Yeah. Right? When you do books, you get fat check. Well, where are the fat checkers? Right? Simple thing that can be googled in two seconds. He's going to have serious questions to answer. He is. We'll be discussing it more on Thursday on the broad answer. Well, it's going to be a few pennies episode. Everyone's watching your channel. Congratulations. They're certainly giving us pennies to talk about. They are. Yeah. Well, you'll have lots to talk about on the next episode of rules on scented. It shops on Thursday evening. Yeah. Everyone's watching a channel and this is why? Because there's just so much to talk about. Well, we launched it at the right time here. We're not sure to material. That's for sure. But this is a fascinating story. I don't think any of us saw this coming. The royals didn't see it coming. But yet again at the centre of it all now is discord. Another rift and that Spencer royal family war being played out three decades later, just as powerful as before. And you know what? I think in the end, it will be all Spencer's reputation that suffers more than King Charles's. I would put money on it. Just from the anecdotal, my mother's a good litmus test for these things. She's the voice of middle England. She's furious about this and the timing and the motivation. And I haven't even told her about what he's done about me. Oh my gosh, he's citing feathers. I can't even imagine, I may not even tell her. I'm looking forward to this. You might have my mother finds out. Anyway, great to see you all and best of luck with the show on Thursday. Well, it's going to do now from the United States. Joining me now is Danny Kennedy. He's seen a reporter at the Daily Mail US. I don't know. Welcome to Uncensored. Thank you, Piers. Well, first of all, congratulations to the mail on a riveting scoop. I was absolutely engrossed with it for the week that you guys were setting the agenda with all this. But you know, it's interesting. Now that we actually get to read the book, people like me who are in it have been able to study what's been written and compare it with actual facts. And immediately, in my case, it's come up with the fact that the story about me is completely invented. Now, I wasn't even at the mirror when he accuses me of doing something which led to the mirror paying down a million pounds. I mean, you know, how do you feel about his credibility? Well, you know, having heard you run through all that, you have a lot of credibility against Earl Spencer because you lay out the facts. It's very clear he has lied about something very specific. But for someone like me, I am not my Daily Mail colleagues in London that know this story backwards. And for it's, I'm just an American in New York and we have a very different perspective. Even hearing you guys talk about this for a moment, you have to sit back as an American and think, who are these people again? The royals, you know, what do they do? They really form policy. You people do take them very seriously. We, of course, don't. And when I first heard about this, my gut reaction peers was, I didn't believe Earl Spencer. And why I'm old enough to remember the 90s when Prince Charles was viewed as a cad for the whole triangle with him and Camilla and Diana. And my thought was, everybody knew back then what had gone down. I mean, Diana's saying on TV though that incredible line that a Hollywood scriptwriter couldn't make up saying there were three of us in that marriage. For him, Diana's death really did mean in a horrible way that it was going to be a lot easier for him to move forward with Camilla. So you'd think that he would be overly lovely and overly nice and wouldn't say anything to sort of augment his cad energy. That's the first thing that came to my mind and I am not the royals expert like you. Right. I mean, King Charles had just been to the United States. I was saying what was a very successful trip. You know, he made a great speech to Congress. He made a great speech at the big reception that Donald Trump threw for him. And it was deemed a huge success. How are Americans reacting to all this? Are they suddenly turning on King Charles because Earl Spencer tells them to? Or is it a different kind of vibe, do you think? I think peers that King Charles is not of great interest to most Americans. Maybe people 60 and 70 and above. We all, at least I do. We are focused on, if we're focused on the royals at all, we're focused on Prince William and Kate and Megan and Harry. Those are what people, you forget how short memories are. You know, that's who I think we're focused on. Prince Charles does not have charisma. He may now have sort of reinvented himself as a kindly respectable elder statesman, but he's got no juice peers. I mean, really, I don't think people are, you know, out the by the water cooler talking about Prince Charles. Sorry to say. Well, you've even demoted him because obviously he's King Charles now. That's right. Well, I'm an American. I don't have it all in my mind at the same time he is. He is King Charles. But peers, I just have to ask you one thing. When you're talking about him, you certainly sound very pro King Charles and I get it. But wasn't he kind of not the greatest guy, wasn't he an awfully cold fish with poor Diana, you know, you know, what I honestly felt about it was, I think he was a lot older than she was. He was told, basically, he had to marry her. He had to marry a virgin. I mean, can you imagine in modern day and age that this was the rule? And did he really though? Did he really have to marry a virgin real? That was kind of the royal rules of engagement at the time, right? So you've got a garnish 30s marrying a 19 year old young woman. Clearly, I don't think that well suited, although Diana, you know, was always keen to tell people. I remember when Charles took part in authorised biography by a guy called Jonathan Dimblebee about his life. And one of the bombshell revelations was that he said Dimblebee that Charles made it clear. He was never really in love with Diana. And I got a call from somebody close to Diana saying, that's a lie. He was. And you have pictures in your safe. I was at the news of the world at the time, is that is it? You have pictures in your safe that were suppressed at the time of them on a second honeymoon, where Charles is throwing Diana all over the place in the ocean, which show how much in love they were. And we went and found the pictures and we were told you can publish them now. We published them and under the headline are pictures that prove Charles did love Diana. And so I felt that she certainly believed he did. And I think that the blowback Charles got to that intimation in the Dimblebee book, surprised him and he then clarified things a different way. But ultimately, I think the truth is, he was always in love with Camilla Parker-Boltz. And he's remained in love with Camilla Parker-Boltz. And you know, by royal standards, actually being in love with one woman, but having to maybe marry somebody else and then that does of work and then you end up with the woman you're always in love with, you know, he's not the greatest flounder in the history of monarchs of this country. I can tell you that for nothing. And I do believe that this was the great love of his life. And it was sad for Diana, but Diana was no angel. She had a string of affairs with all sorts of people as well. I think they were just ill-suited. And Diana was a mccurial, wonderful, very complex person. I knew by the end very well. I'd lunch with her in William at the palace. She would call me and we'd go over stories together and things like that. She was complicated, but I never felt that she and Charles were a good match. But he and Camilla are a great match and they've proven that. So, you know, is he a good man? Would he probably say that his own behaviour? You know, probably he wasn't exemplary in the Marital Department, but I do think, essentially, he's a good man. And Camilla, I know very well, she comes from the village next to mine, down in East Sussex. We've always gone on very well. I've always liked her, but I like Diana too. They're just incredibly different people. And if you ask me who was Charles better suited to, absolutely, it was Camilla. All along. Always was, always will be. They're a great love story, even if it's an imperfect journey to get there. My thought, though, is peers that the long arm of Diana, the ghost of Princess past, is still somewhat there. I heard you talking earlier about whether or not she would like this. I don't know if she would have, but it's just there seems to always be a Diana or a Megan or a Neural Spencer in the royal family that for lack of a better phrase keeps it interesting. It's like one of the world's longest reality shows and they certainly have a good scriptwriter. - Well, you know what, one thing's for sure. This is gonna be a story that rolls and rolls and rolls is like a Shakespeare play, which comes in various acts, but Danny Kennedy, thank you very much for leaving joining me. - Thanks, fears. - Well, I'm joined in a studio by Tom Bauer, he's the world biographer and journalist, and my test has done a lot, has drawn in commentator, and Wilson was supposed to be here too, to make the case for El Spencer, but change his mind while watching the first part of the show, so that's the chair he would have sat in, I'm not entirely sure what has gone on there, with they and Wilson, but anyway, it would have been nice to have chatted to it, maybe he just felt he couldn't defend the indefensible, and I don't know, and we'll find out afterwards. Welcome to both of it. Tom, you're an author of great repeat and highly successful. I did a little check as you may have uncovered, so you know, the one entry about me is completely wrong, inaccurate, a lie, defamatory, actually, accusing me of a grotesque invasion of Diana's privacy, for which we had to pay a million pounds, so I had nothing to do with me at all. So I'm instructing solicitors to get in touch with Penguin, to get them to take this out of the book, and to give damages to the King's Trust, which I thought would be an appropriate way to resolve things, assuming they agreed to take it out. It's a prime of a basic case, 'cause you can just Google it. In light of what I've uncovered purely about me, what does that say about the credibility and accuracy of the rest of the book? Well, I'm afraid I don't think it's credible, the way it's we've heard, because we haven't read the book yet, but I mean, I'm sad that Spencer, who actually has written a couple of very good history books, should have fallen into this sort of money-grabbing, salacious rubbish. I mean, I even to mention the story about four sets. Yeah. It was just ridiculous, because we all know that Smith, who gave Diana the story, the valet's story, was in the priori, he was ill, and we know that the idea of Charles Lyon in bedroom four sets is just ridiculous. This is Michael Fourset, it was his valet, he was believed to be. Who said, that is the reason that Diana did the divorce. She did the divorce, 'cause he was ordered to, by the queen, after she did the panoron interview. So there's that, but I think much more important, I can contribute to this. When I wrote my book about Charles house eight years ago, I spoke to three people who were bound moral at the time. Two of them was still alive. The third one was Robert Fellows, the queen's privacy entry. All three told me that. Who was married to James Fellows' sister. And the important thing is this, firstly, all three, two of them alive, said that Charles was absolutely smitten with grief that weekend. But most important of all was Robert Fellows, who reinforced that scenario of grief. But the most interesting thing we can challenge Spencer with now is, he says that after he got the giddy, elated quote from Charles, he taught his family and friends. Now, one of them would have been definitely Jane Fellows, who was in Valmoral at the time. I challenge Jane Fellows now to send a letter to the time, confirming it. But what my brother said was true, because of anyone. She's never spoken of. She has never spoken. But now is the challenge. The veracity of Charles Spencer on this amazingly damaging story is where they did tell Jane Spencer that night about what Charles has said to him, because she clearly was the person who was talking to Valmoral. Tessa, welcome back to our senses. Thank you. We're normally locking horns about the Sussexes, but we can park them for a bit. They come into this a little bit. Where do you sit with this, the battle of the two charges? Just very quickly. Lovely to sit next to you, Tom. And I was looking forward to potentially agreeing with you, but I've been surrounded by so many hypocritical men talking about Diana, the iconic woman of the late 20th century. Did you just accuse somebody of writing money-grabbing salacious rubbish? I'm just going to park that back, because I have a couple of your books with Meghan on the front cover at home. Anyway, moving now, if I may, on to the mattress hand, Charles Spencer, I have an issue with absolutely every aspect of this sorry saga. I have an issue with Charles Spencer detonating, raking over past stories and pain and monetising it to pay for his extraordinarily expensive private life. I have an issue with the comment, the rebuttal, the word salad verbose rebuttal, that the king authorised at great speed, and I think will live to repent. And I have a real issue with the way in which the BBC failed to sufficiently challenge Spencer. They were invited onto his turf, basically, it was a home match for the Earl, by the way, he does use his title. I have that in good authority. I've been to Naesley Church, where his title is used to try and promote this battlefield. So there's this sort of tissue of sort of fabrications. But I felt that it was deeply sad that our public broadcaster didn't feel more emboldened and able to really challenge him about the motivations. Well, you know what, I watched the Laura Koonsberg interview. And other than the apparent hypocrisy, this is a guy who's been railing against the BBC for the last few years and then gives them the scoop in the same way that he used to rail against the mail. And then gave them the scoop. There's a lot of hypocrisy there. But parking that to one side, I thought the Recoons by didn't okay job, actually. I thought that she didn't smash him over the head with the hammer, but didn't really need to. She teased stuff out of him, which we can now examine forensically and work out whether we believe it. And the problem that I have now, having seen what he wrote about me and knowing it's 100% wrong, is I find it very hard to believe him when he says down the barrel of the camera to the BBC, well, you must believe me because it's the truth. Yes, but I think that's where I disagreed because I thought it was a forning interview. I thought if you've been doing the interview, you'd have been far more aggressive, far more demanding. The ballet stories outrageous. The story about the Gidley elated is just nonsense. Well, the idea that he'd been like a lottery winner. Well, he didn't challenge him. But it was a very well-eminent. They were sitting in a gigantic drawing room, all his wealth surrounding him. He leapfrogged his three sisters to Claimix, through Premajeneta, and he has the goal to say he doesn't believe in flammery or titles. I mean, I'm sorry, and she let it go. It was extraordinary. He then says he prefers the Norwegian monarchy. Oh, last time I checked his fourth wife was Norwegian. And the whole thing just stank, it was obscene. I couldn't believe it. What do you want to think? I mean, is he just a dish revenged, served cold here? Well, I think it's a very money. Well, OK, he's going to make a fortune, he hopes. And he will get a lot of them. He'll get millions out of it. But I think, as well, the Spencers and the Windsors are always being at war. But I think it's also guilt-feeling by Spencer. After all, Diana would be alive today if he'd agreed at her request that she could spend the week with her boys and all thought, he said no, because she he'd be bothered by the paparazzi. So she had to go off with Valle. And Paul Barrel, her valet, had a wonderful line there that he wouldn't have Diana in his house when she was alive, which charges 10 pounds for everyone to visit her when she's dead. And that's the whole thing about her. And he's the person who facilitated the panorama interview, which in the end triggered, as he says, this disaster in her life. And what do you say to those like Tessa, who sneer at people like you, who write books about The Rawls and so on? They said, well, look, we've all gouged as a media of the entrails of The Royal Family and Diana in particular for decades. Why shouldn't he, as a historian, have his say, and has he set the records, say, in his own swan song, and leave it there? Well, he could if he was accurate. But that's the problem. And I take issue with this sort of muck creaking. The point is, the Sussex is meant nothing until they went to America, went on to opera, went on to Netflix, went to Apple TV, gave Indus interviews, damaging Britain and the Royal Family. It's not true that they meant nothing. You can't be somebody who gorgeous on Royal Stories. Well, you've had most of the floor. But anyway, continue. Thank you. Let me start again. You can edit it out. What I find objectionable is about this sort of muck creaking is the Sussex's advanced arguments, which were patently untrue. They were lying about The Royal Family about Britain. Did huge damage, as Spencer has done now. And my job was to show the truth about Meghan and the truth about Harry, and that they really-- But he would use that argument back, wouldn't he? He would say there've been so many lies printed about my sister. But what lies? What lies? Well, he would say-- He would just say he's put in the record for it. Well, I don't write the whole book. Exactly, but that's interesting. The male hasn't identified a lie expressing the need-- But he's correcting. That he's correcting. Of course, it's not. He is the man who's got the inventions. And the point about all this is that it's usually damaging to the Royal Family. Oh, but the Royal Family have made this much worse. They've made this much worse by releasing that-- But I don't agree. I thought it was a good thing to do. I do as well. No, I'm sorry. Laura Klunzberg sat there and weaponized the King's words very long, that cloud reason-- Oh, come on. It was that long. It was ridiculous. It was compared to the recollections may vary a brush off, which was all argument. I think all three of us would agree. he just deserved a brush off. What it did was it gave cream. to Charles Spence's worth. And then you had the train versus. - I don't agree. - But it happened on television last night. They both slugged it out against each other. He said, "No, he said, 'I'm right, no, I'm right.' It was demeaning to the Instagram. - Charles hasn't said any of that. He simply said it. - I'm sorry, he did. - He said, when people agree stricken, the memories can get muddled. - Yes, they're basically. - And by the way, he's right. He effectively said, "Charl Spence is lying." I agree with Laura Cleansfag that, and she weaponized those words and what you had was. - But we know. We know. - We know. - Okay, but look, we know, we know, no. Purely from what he's written about me that he's telling lies in the book. - But in the. - I mean, period. - That's a typo, it's a D. - It's a typo at all, is it? - It's a long attack on me, based on an entirely fault premise. - You are. - Quite a bit, sometimes, period, though. - It's a typo. - Well, I asked for a lie to be published. - Charles Spence has left you. - I asked for a lie to be published. - No, you didn't. - In a book, in a book there's going to be someone here. - That has someone who also writes books, but doesn't write Mark Raking rubbish. Sometimes you get timelines a little bit muddled in a first edition. - You've really surprised me. - You launch attacks on individuals on, based on an entirely false information. You think that's acceptable? - I don't think, you know, that's between you and Charles Spence. - Not really, he's published it in a book. - He's gonna sell millions of copies. - I don't think that next. - He's made a defamation. - Is grist to the mill that everything he said is a lie. My issue is the immorality of weaponizing it. He pledged in that Westminster Abbey service that turned him into a hero in that hour, the perically inauguration. He'd been prepped for all his life in his public schools. He pledged, and I wrote it down, that he would continue the imaginative way in which Diana stared her two exceptional young men. And he also pledged to respect the heritage into which they had been born. He was not challenged with those words yesterday. He was not asked how he thought he is serving to help them in the way that he promised to by throwing all this torjory story into the public domain. It cleaves the two boys in two separate directions. William has nowhere to go. - What's funny, though, is I listen to you being so indignant about this. I'm thinking, where was this sentiment when Meghan and Harry were tossing their garbage at the Royal family? - It was very different. - Oh, wasn't it? - Yeah, very different. - Oh, was it? - Charles is. - I don't think so. - I'm so sorry. - I mean. - Al Spencer, with the enormous inheritance, his staggering wealth, the reign supreme over Middle-East. - You mean like Harry's, you mean? - No, but. - Harry got 15 million, was it? - Effectively his own monarch. Harry actually clearly felt very burnt within the system. And he was a kind of effectively a whistler. - So Harry and Meghan. - The younger, he was more naive. - Right, so all the old stuff about being a bunch of Callas racists who wouldn't let Meghan have any treatment for mental health issues, none of which has ever been substantiated, none of which then appeared in Harry's book because it was all bullshit. So none of that bothers you. That's all, you've defended that at this desk, very vociferously. - I. - And now you say that Al Spencer doing it is apparently beyond the pale. - Because of the damage it does to the royal family. To which I say, we think the lady may be a bit of a hypocrite. - Tell me why didn't the king issue one of his verbose rebuttals in the wake of the publication of spare? He didn't. - Why do they need to? - I rest my case, because actually it wasn't really vindictive. - I don't think you can. - I can't imagine. - I tell you why, 'cause I can't imagine. Well, I know this reflect that the king, when he was told that it was said, that he had reacted like a lottery winner, and he's found it's so grotesquely offensive. - I rest my case. - That he. Well, no, that he. - Because they're not comparable. - Well, they are comparable. You're indignant about one, but you support the other. Tom, who's gonna win out of all this? My gut feeling from public reaction that I've had to this, both on social media and walking around. I think the public are on King Charles's side here. - I think both are Luke going to lose. I think the King's losing, the monarch is in trouble, Megan and Harry are gonna cause enormous trouble at some stage. There's the Andrew issue. Spencer's been an enormous problem. The monarchy is once more damaged. - Oh, I think so. - And I don't. - Sorry. - Get alone and finish. - And I really don't think anyone cares about Spencer. And I think that whether he, his reputation as others or not, four times married, he talks about caring for the two boys. His own daughters wouldn't have them at their wedding, 'cause he's a bad father, so don't let them. - I think I'm afraid I see right through all this. - In answer to your question, he's a moral toad, I think, Charles Spencer. And that's why I have no track with what he's done. Whereas I felt Harry and Megan actually felt trapped in the institution, and I don't think she was treated. - Really, I think they're a pair of moral toads too. - I don't think you can compare the two. - I just did, they're moral toads. - Well, I'm just explaining to you what I think they're very different. - Anyway, thank you both very much. I appreciate it. Well, all five major US networks released an extremely rare joint statement today, united against a president decision to ban specific media outlets from the White House, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and Fox News, have united against Trump's total banner reporters from CNN, MSNOW, and Politico at the White House. The president accuses them of repeatedly publishing fake news, fiction, and lies, all three outlets, so they will sue the administration, calling the move unprecedented and unconstitutional. My next guest knows the thing or two about the US media. Bill O'Ridey is a Bill O'Ridey's broadcasting Titan. He's also written a new book in Fronting America. What has to change? And he joins me now. Bill, welcome back to Uncensored. - Thanks for having me, Pierce. - You're a former Fox News media Titan, which is relevant to this, because I was very struck by the fact that Fox News were the ones who appeared to be leading the response to this on behalf of other networks, racing to defend their colleagues. And in a pretty unprecedented move, say, we will not do any more pull coverage until this is resolved. What did you make of it? - Well, the leader of the Washington White House press corps is a Fox correspondent. But when the story broke, Fox didn't really cover it. So I'm confused. I think people should cover the news. So in confronting America, what has to change? I have a fake news chapter. So the discussion between you and me has to begin with one fact, or we can't have a discussion, that in the second term of Donald Trump, the corporate media here has done everything it could do to harm him and to promote the Democratic party. Would you agree with that? - Well, I would argue that it's always worked both ways. - But it's not to this extent. Let me give you an example. Last week, there was very good economic news. So lowest rate of poverty for American households and history. And each household now, the Accumed Wealth, has broken a record as well. That's a pretty big story, would you not say? - Yeah, but it comes at the same time as things like gas prices are rocketing as a result of the Iran war. So people are saying, how many times do we heard that? - Yeah, but it's hard to be-- - How many times do we heard it? - Yeah, but it's hard to be told, hey, everything's rosy in the economic garden. If you yourself are really struggling as millions of Americans are, because of things like gas prices. - Well, I managed to do it. Okay, I managed to report both stories that individuals are suffering because of high gas prices in the USA. Yet, the macroeconomic picture is fairly strong. Wasn't really tough, Pierce. I mean, I wrote that in about 30 seconds. So MSNBC, CNN, and political didn't mention the story at all. That's a suppression of the news. This is where the story gets very interesting. So if you go to billorily.com, I wrote a column and say, Donald Trump is likely to lose in federal court by banishing certain news agencies. It's likely to happen. The Associated Press is banished right now. And that's been going on for close to a year. The court may get to it, may not. But there's no urgency there. So the Associated Press got booted. Now, these three agencies are booted as well. But the Constitution is clear that the powers of the press cannot be a bridge. So in the legalism, the president will probably lose. He doesn't care. He wants to expose these agencies as fake news corrupt. And they are. So then the question becomes, does the First Amendment in the US Constitution protect the suppression of news like in Russia? Putin's never going to allow anything to be printed or even spoken that makes Putin look bad. Do we have the same system here? Because we certainly are suppressing the news. No doubt about it. Yeah, but that's entirely down to each individual news organizations right to report any news they see fit, right? If you want to run them down, I'll run them down for you. Because it's a like 80% to 20% that are anti-Trump and working with the Democratic Party. But I remember Bill, I remember with it. I remember when Obama was president. He were used to almost. relentless campaign against freedom of the press. He was very draconian against journalism. He tried to jail journalists and he was always doing stuff I felt to infringe on rights to free speech and right to freedom of the press. And he also, on one occasion, his administration barred a Fox News journalist and barred Fox News and attending one thing that they were putting on for the media. And again, what happened there were the other networks got together as they have done here and said, no, the Fox News have to be allowed back in. And they were the decision got reversed. I'm sure we'll see the same here. Trump will, I think, reverse this having made his point because he'll want to be on TV. I'm not so sure about that. No, Obama was very prickly when it came to criticism with him. I had a very good relationship with President Obama. I interviewed him three times and I get him on the phone because I was fair to him. I wasn't looking to hammer him. I was looking to report what he was doing and why I was doing it. Same thing way I cover Trump. It's the same way. So I'm critical of Trump when he does stuff that I don't understand or that I don't think is good for the American people. But I'm not going out there every day and trying to hurt him. And I didn't think the founding fathers wanted that. I don't think they wanted that kind of a scenario. Let me give you another example. Maybe you can advise me. I'm putting Pierce Morgan up as my advisor. So you know that I'm the best selling nonfiction author in the world. You know that. Okay. So wherever I go on television in the colonies, the ratings go up and substantially up. Okay. I don't know why maybe it's my hair. I don't know. I can't get booked and either can Victor Davis Hanson brilliant man on any network show at all to promote my book confronting America which should change. What has to change? I can't get booked. Either can Davis Hanson either can any conservative author. Now I'm not a conservative, but that's the soup can they put me in. Okay. So that's a suppression again. And now that's what the Supreme Court. Because I think Trump's going to take this to the limit to quote the Eagles. I think he's going to do that to just to give his adversaries into media a hard time. I don't think he was because I think he'll miss the live TV coverage. He relies on that. It's his oxygen when he sees CNN having to devote, you know, half an hour an hour to him talking live. If they're not going to be doing that until this gets resolved in a way that they deem fair and they're backed even by Fox News, then Trump at some point is going to have to cave, isn't it? Well, Fox News will cover Trump, so will Newsmax, so will a number of other agencies. I'll certainly cover him. So I don't know if he's going to get, you know, deep six by the entire media. But I'm sympathetic to people in my profession who want to protect the freedom of expression from the government. Because if you don't have that, then King George comes back. Right. Which might be a bad idea. Well, I don't know about that. No, hey, I don't want Putin telling me my news every day. I don't want the mullahs telling me my news. But it has come to such a crisis point in America, the dishonesty. And again, I have a whole chapter in confronting America, just listing all of the things that the corporate media has done to rely itself with the Democratic Party. There's some patico peers. That powerful American news agency are now trying to get the Democrats elected. That's not what Benjamin Franklin and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wanted. Yeah. Listen, I don't disagree. I think they're neutral. The mainstream media in America is ridiculous. It's skewed to the liberal world to Democrat. I always joke. It's a bit like in England. You can shoot a harpoon around the BBC Newsroom and you wouldn't hit a conservative voter. It's just a fact. I know them all. They're all to the left. But I know. And so do I. So between the UK and the United States, you have this monolith of liberal thought and no counter. See, I don't mind a liberal thought. That doesn't bother me, but put me on. Yeah. So I can now challenge it. Is that too much to ask apparently it is? You mentioned King George III. I don't think anybody wants him, but at least of all the British. But there's a lot of royal scandal blowing up again now, Bill. You've covered a lot of this over the years. I don't know. We've quite how much personal enthusiasm, but we've got the two stories of Meghan and Harry coming back to the UK and going down as I put it on Foxy other night, like the second wave of COVID, just when you thought it was gone, back they come. And secondly, you've got Earl Spencer's book where he talks about being a historian, you know, similar kind of world that you operate in as an author and dumping all over the King, saying terrible things that Charles was supposed to have said to him 30 years ago and so on. My question I think is, how does America view our royal family now? Because it seems to me. Well, it's not as popular as it was, but there's still a lot of support for them. There's not a lot of emotion involved. It's more like a spectator sport. Look at these dopey royals. That's what it is. But it's a huge industry and the tragedy of it is that this Spencer book will probably outsell me. I think that's just outrageous. I think that is an outrage. Well, you know, it's quite, you won't have heard this, but I got an early copy and we found the entry about me where he just completely makes up an entire story, which I can prove is completely made up because he talks about something that happened. Yeah, why not though? Well, why not? It's such an industry that he's got to fill 275 pages. People don't understand both in the United States and in the UK. You just don't walk into a publisher and get money to write a book. You go in and you tell a publisher, this is the book I want to write. Yeah. Okay, I want to make the king look bad. Okay, I don't want two sides or I want to make it and harry look bad. And the publisher will either write the check or he won't. Yeah. It's like it's like in America, we have all these hate Trump books. Okay, well, it's not like they've investigated Trump. They go in hating him. That's true. And trying to back up the hatred. That's how it's done. Yeah. No, it's true. What did you make of the Ed Sheeran Fiorori bill? The what? The Ed Sheeran Fiorori. Oh, oh, oh, oh. That's a little guy with the funny haircut, right? Yes. Yeah, I'm still with Herman's Hermits myself. I mean, I am truly a dinosaur when it comes to that. Look, I don't understand a Maclamore or I share obviously talented man and I, but people want, they go to concerts for relief, you know, to get away from their problems and to have a good time. Do we really need Israel's committing genocide from some rapper with tattoos from head to toe? Do we really need that? So if I'm Ed, okay, I kind of say, all right, we respect your opinion about Israel or whatever you want. But let's keep it light. Let's entertain the folks. Okay, we don't need to get into this big geopolitical thing and use our status to push it. We don't need to do that. I think that would be a logical thing. Springsteen does this here in America. He runs around it. Hey, Bruce, look, you want to come up against me or peers for half an hour and talk geopolitics, then I respect you. But you don't, Bruce. You don't. Yeah, I agree with you. I agree with you. It's interesting you mentioned tattoos because in your book confronting America, what has to change is an excellent book. I always love reading your stuff. Always makes me think. When it always makes me think, you challenge me to think about things in a certain way, which I probably haven't thought about before. I think that's always a great thing of any author. So I do appreciate that. But in there, you talk about the things you don't like. And one of them is tattoos. You say a neck tattoo is not, is not going to stimulate higher wages, unless you're motivated to work in a strip club, showing up for a job interview, like looking like a hell's angel, is not going to advance your calls in most pieces. Americans need to think about self respect. As a tattoo free man, I agree, with you Bill. Listen, it's an economic situation. Thank God, I'm as handsome as I am, so I don't need any embellishments. All right, I don't need to be panther on the neck, okay? I'm fine with the way I was born and the way I've evolved. But in our country, and I think to some extent, the UK, you walk into a job interview, you are instantly evaluated on your appearance. I do it. I run three corporations, okay? And I look at the person, if I see a sleeve or a tattoo on the nose or teardrops, whatever they're doing, that is not a positive for me to hire that person. Now, I could be wrong about. The person might be the nicest person, might be brilliant, all of that. But it's very hard in a capitalist society to make a success of yourself. And you don't need to do this other stuff unless you're going to be Maclamore, okay? Are you going to be out there with Ed Sheeran? Are you going to do that? Okay, then you're going to have as many tattoos as you want. You're going to be a soccer player in England. Go ahead. But if you're a regular folk and you're going in to try to get a good job, none of this piercing in the nose, none of it will help you. It's human nature. I totally agree. In fact, I'm going to have a tattoo inspection of my entire staff at the end of this. Bill, always great to talk to you. Thank you very much, David, you want to meet me? The face reading the book here is appreciated. Peace Morgan on Sensor is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. We enjoy our show and also only one simple thing. It's subscribe on YouTube and follow Peace Morgan on Sensor on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you. [Music]