Thomas Markle Sr Allegations | Piers Morgan Says “Questions MUST Be Asked”

I feel like there's a long list of people ahead in terms of accountability before Megan is accountable. They're Harry and Megan. It's not how to catch her predator in the UK. She reported it. She kept her kids away from them. Her father's a deplorable human being. I believe strongly in due process. Whoever it is, right? Thomas Markle is innocent until proven guilty. For five years, they said that the source of their suffering was the British press and the royal family. And we now know the pair of them were living with this incredibly dark secret. Instead of using her newly acquired platform to champion vulnerable children, she chose to try to destroy the British royal family via Netflix. We saw the press over there kill presses, Diana. What are you talking about? So they just got into Rome, Harry, and Megan got in Rome to say, "We're going to pop this out for my room." "I'm going to pop this out for you." Megan Markle's father is an alleged pedophile who hauded child porn at his home in the Philippines. Those are the staggering claims made by his son Thomas Markle, Jr. and are now subject to criminal investigation. Now, finding out your own father could be a child abuse, it must be gut-wrenching beyond comparison. It's hard to imagine, frankly, anything worse for any daughter. And on a human level, Megan Markle, for this has my sympathy and, indeed, that for many other people. But it's precisely because the allegations against her father, Thomas, are so sinister and serious that accountability really matters. That applies to both Megan and Harry and, above all, to law enforcement in multiple countries. We need to know who knew what and when. Allegations of pedophilia against Thomas Sr. were first made in 2019 by his ex-wife, Rosalyn, who wrote directly to London's Metropolitan Police. They share misletter with Harry and Megan, but they didn't share it with authorities in Mexico, where Thomas Sr. was living, or in the US, where he remains a citizen. It seems extraordinary that no real action was taken over claims that a prince's father-in-law may be a pedophile. Six years later, Megan Markle writes to her father to break off all contact and announces he would never meet his grandchildren. She did this by sending him a letter when he was in hospital and having the moment he received it videoed. Megan says she told her father that she knew he'd abuse young girls and that authorities were aware of, according to people who have knowledge of the contents of a letter. Thomas Sr. was in hospital in the Philippines at the time, after a leg amputation. The handover, like I say, was filmed. To remove any doubt apparently that he may have received it. What we don't know, because we haven't seen it yet, are the contents of that letter, or why Megan Markle now felt compelled to make the allegations directly. Megan took a lot of flack at the time for the way she was treating her father as he lay sick. She's taken a lot of flack over the years for cutting her father out of her life. But both she and Prince Harry have always cited his collusion with tabloid newspapers as the reason for the breakdown in their relationship, including during that infamous Oprah interview. Harry then said in their Netflix show that he sold at the burden, because if it wasn't for their marriage, she'd still have a dad. In his memoir, Spare Harry blames for tabloids for corrupting an elderly vulnerable man. All of this played out in the six years between the first time they saw allegations he was a pedophile and the latest new allegations by Thomas Jr. Did they simply not believe the claims made in the 2019 letter? What change before Megan wrote that letter in 2025? And what exactly did she accuse him of? Above all, did anybody involved who supplies chiefly to Lawrence enforcement at every level, allowing alleged child abuse to remain free to potentially keep on offending? This situation demands full transparency, not a murky soap opera, which plays out only in the press. What do you want me to discuss with his Tom Sykes, host of the Royalist, U.S. Attorney Mike Eiglash, Joe Elvin, co-host of the Royal's Uncensored, and the founder of Hollywood Unlocked Jason Lee. Well, welcome to all of you. Let me start with you, Joe, if I can. Look, this is a gigantic scandal. It's hard to imagine, even including Prince Andrew, the Andrew Mum, Baton Winsor, as he now is, because of the scandal that engulfed him with Jeffrey Epstein. It's hard to imagine anything, more egregious, than the father of somebody who then married a royal British prince being accused of pedophilia. Where do you sit? Where do I sit? Well, the thing is, anyone who watches the Royal's Uncensored will know that I definitely have my notes for the Sussexes. I continue to be frustrated by the hypocrisy of moaning ceaselessly, as you mentioned, about how horrible it is being part of the Royal family. How it's a, you know, it's a cage Harry's talked about being trapped, and yet on the other hand, they definitely need to be adjacent to that royal family to make their commercial gains as they have done over the preceding years. As a woman and as a daughter and as a mother, I feel terribly sorry for Meghan to have found out this heinous information about her father. I can't imagine what that's like on a personal level, even without it being played out so publicly. But like you say, there's a lot to unpack, and the more I hear about this story, the more questions and the more I have and the more confused I am. My first question isn't for the accountability of Meghan. My first question is for the accountability of Thomas's first wife, Ms. Loveless, who wrote that letter. Why did she write it to the British authorities when they've got no jurisdiction over an American citizen? Why did she not speak to the Mexican authorities? Why did the British police not take it up with the American authorities? I feel like there's a long list of people ahead in terms of accountability before Meghan is accountable, because I can also imagine that if you're horrified and embarrassed, you want to be pretty sure that you're sure about something so public, so that's so heinous, don't you think? Yeah, absolutely, and I don't disagree with anything you said. I think Jason, welcome back to Uncensored to you. You know, I know you're sympathetic to the Sussexism have been historically, and you're perfectly entitled to be, right? Everyone's entitled to their view. I have a different view as everyone knows. But on this, when it comes to accountability, I'm not saying just to be clear, there is any accountability required by Meghan or Harry for a alleged pedophilia actions of Thomas Markle senior. So to be clear, that's not why I'm looking for accountability. The accountability is there is a massive time lapse between January 2019 when they are first alerted to his alleged pedophilia, and to December 2025, so a year ago, when Meghan Markle sends this letter to her father, which she has videoed the moment that it's handed over so that there is an accountability there for him receiving it, in which she is reported to have said by those who know the contents that she knows he's a child abuser. That is why he'll never see her or her children again. Now, we didn't know any of this until last week, right? So for those who are demanding the media, who were critical of the way she treated her father or Harry did or whatever, before now, you can only go on the facts which are in the public domain. So yes, of course you can take a different view of it now, but you can't expect the media to judge on information of which they had no knowledge. And that comes to where I think the accountability for the Sussex is lies. And again, to be clear, the major accountability is with Thomas Markle senior, did he do what he's accused of doing? If he did, Chuck him in jail throw the key away. Secondly, the British police, why didn't they alert authorities to try and stop him from continuing to allegedly offend? But down the accountability ladder come two people who were using their massive public profile to constantly hold other people accountable and putting the safety of children at the forefront of all their charitable stuff as well. And yet here they appear to have been, again, appear to have been. We may not know everything yet. And maybe Meghan and Harry were constantly chasing up the police in those six, seven years and getting nowhere, in which case they should say so. I also think they should publish the two letters. Everyone should be able to see exactly what was said in January 2019 and December 2025. That would help a lot in how you assess this. But in terms of the accountability, would you not agree, Jason, notwithstanding your support for them over other issues? The on this, it would be the responsibility of everybody in their position to do what they could to try and stop more offenses being committed against children. Well, let me first start by saying that, yeah, I do like Harry and Meghan, but I'm not a fanboy. I'm somebody who was molested as a kid, who went to his mother that didn't believe him, who went to the police, who made it very complicated to make a report. She's Harry and their Harry and Meghan, it's not how to catch a predator in the UK. She's not the host of a network television show going out to find predators. I think what I learned was she reported it. She kept her kids away from him. I live in a country where our president is in the Epstein files and he bombs kids and I ran in order to mass the fact that we still don't know everybody that was at the parties. And I'm not one to sit here and blame or transfer responsibility for something that this deplorable father did to her. I mean, I think she did what she was supposed to do. I think as you set it up beautifully early on when we started this segment, they're shared responsibly between this father who deserves every consequence. Once he's found guilty, I don't even want to presume he's innocent at this point. And then the police department that failed to do. Well, no, it's all we do, but I don't know. Well, just on that, Jay, Jay, Jay, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, I just don't know. I just don't know how everything goes back to blaming Megan. No, no one's, no one's blaming Megan for the alleged abuse to be clear. And to also be clear, Thomas Mark, I believe strongly in due process, whoever it is, right? He's not even been arrested at this stage, right? And it may have been, and this is my point about accountability. So they're about blame, but it may have been if Megan and Harry haven't been given that information in 2019 had played this differently. And we don't know they didn't try. So maybe they did, and it didn't, and nothing happened. But if they didn't say or do anything in the six years that followed, they are allowing somebody that his ex-wife has told them was a child abuser to potentially abuse other children. You very courageously just offered up your own story about what happened. I would simply say to you, Jason, in this, in to consider hypothetical eventuality where, you know, you were being abused, and you said you raised it with your mother, but say somebody else had been sent a letter about what was happening to you. And they did nothing with that information, and you carried on being abused, right? That is the scenario I'm talking about. But we're assuming that that happened. I think that's reckless to assume that that happened. Well, you're well, hang on. Well, hang on. Okay, but you're assuming he's guilty, which many would argue is also legally, and we've got a lawyer with us. If the wife said he'd get the wife said he'd quite like a duck. If the son said he quacks like a duck, he's a duck. I mean, the family's all saying is she said it in a letter. She took her kids away. Well, they're not all saying it. The whole family saying it happened. Okay, he may well be, but I believe in due process, and of course his daughter, Samantha, says he's completely innocent. They're not all agreeing about this. Now, I think the evidence is damning, but his evidence and so far has not even been arrested. Let me bring in Marc Eiglach. Marc, it is a complex story. It's complex because of the high profile of the people involved, but the same principles apply in law, whoever you are, right? Given what I've said about this so far, what is your view about what's happened here? The analysis starts with, contrary to how Jason feels, I do believe in the presumption of innocence, and I don't know anything in terms of what investigation the Philippine authorities have done to prove that he's guilty. So we start there. He enjoys the presumption of innocence like everybody else. Stuff was found by someone else, Megan's half brother. Okay, well, let's explore him. Did you put the stuff there? Was there a forensic analysis done on his computer to prove that it was, you know, Megan's dad who did this? Okay, let's first start there. Then secondly, what did, if anything, the other authorities do? We don't know, and candidly, I love that you're asking the questions, but they owe us nothing. In fact, I would argue that the best law enforcement agencies keep stuff close to the vest and they don't divulge to Pierce Morgan and other media entities. Here's a play by play of what we've done. Keep asking the questions though. I think it's great for not only this case, but future accountability and other cases, but we might not know what they've done if anything. It's possible they said, you know, we did X, Y, and Z, we don't owe the media anything, but it ultimately is a case outside of our jurisdiction. We're not going to investigate things. We have enough on our plate here to not begin investigating things that happen in the different foreign land. Yeah, but I would say to that, you're not just dealing with all the members of the public. Well, the presumption of innocence applies to everybody, Jason. I mean, you may you may feel it's not been applied. Not in this country. Okay. Okay, so when it's unfairly applied, I agree, but since you yourself have already convicted the guy, you should maybe apply your own thinking to that, right? But we're here to make a markle of keeping secrets, but we're here. It's in the court of public opinion to say that she didn't share anything or didn't do that. No, we're not Jason. No one's I couldn't have been I couldn't have been clearer. I couldn't have been clearer in the in repeating again and again, that this is based on information we know, and there may be things we don't know, which can clear up and explain a lot of the discrepancies here in the sequence of events and why certain people don't appear to have done certain things. I have a very open mind about this. I'm not condemning mega-markle for it. I'm simply saying, why is it that the British police and the Sussexes were given this unbelievably serious information in January 2019 and none of them appeared to have acted on it at all? Now, if they did, let's hear what they did or what they tried to do or who they may have alerted or whatever. I don't think those are on reasonable questions, Jason. And, you know, you say you know, there's a change in the process of the police. No, no, no. I'm frustrated because every time I come on the show and every time we talk about mega-markle, it's like anything anybody else does is what does she do? What does she not do? And it's like, damn, the black woman doesn't ever get a break. Like, I'm just trying to understand what is it that she should have done? The black woman. She did to hold her eye on her accountable. What is her skin color going to do with it? What's she going to do? It has to do with everything. Will we talk about, will we talk about mega-markle in this thing? Oh please. In any context that I've ever been on a show with you, it's been about race. I called it out every time. You know that. Just to be clear, you think that any criticism I have a mega-markle is because she's from a biracial Paris, is that? I think every issue that your country has had with mega-markle in general is because she's a black woman. Your queen literally was the side chick to the king when he was married to his father, her mother, before they killed her out there in Paris. So I mean, we can go down that trope. I talked about the blood diamonds last time. You know, at the end of the day, she did what she was supposed to do as a daughter. She reported her father. She distancing from her kid. She doesn't have anything to do with him. He's tried to make profit off of her in the past. We know he's trash, right? So maybe to the lawyer's point, yeah, he's presumed innocent to prove a guilty. I'll give him that because that's the way the rule law is supposed to work. But unfortunately, again, I live in a country where our president in charge, as you know, with the Epstein files, is yet to be given his day in court. So I don't know. Yeah, I think race does play a part when it comes to that. Well, okay, let me bring in some sides. Just to be clear, I think the idea that any criticism of Meghan Markle is racially motivated, is so absurd for somebody like me, right? Who has done more to cover, you know, issues involving racial disparity, racial inequality, and everything else for my entire genetic career. So Jason, with all due respect, it's bullshit. If you don't believe me, go back and read the piece. I'm not going to say, well, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, you've had your say, you've had your say, well, you are, you kind of are actually, you kind of are, you kind of are, and that's fine, because there's an element, there's an element of racism that you refuse to acknowledge. And you just, and if you don't want to acknowledge the racism in this, I think there is an element. What is it? I think what is the racism when it comes here right now, and instead of saying, you know, this woman, this, this, this, this first black princess that came, whatever you want to call her lady, they came forward and reported her father. She distanced herself from them. She, she took her kids out of theirs. The whole family has come forward. She didn't report to her father. It's your fellow police department. We don't know, the whole point is she didn't know the timeline of every second of every day. When did she report to her father? Oh, this all happened here. Okay. Well, why don't we have somebody from, you just said it did. Why don't we have somebody from the UK police department here? Why don't we have somebody here to tell us why they failed? Why the system? We tried. We tried. We tried. We tried. We tried. There's nothing to do with Meghan Markle skin color. Let me bring in, let me bring in Tom Sykes. Tom, welcome to Uncensored. You know, this is one of the problems we're talking about the Sussexes because I feel exactly the same way, for example, about Prince Harry and his accountability or lack of it here in making this wider known as I do Meghan Markle, maybe her father, but Prince Harry is the person she's married to. Last time I checked, he is white or identifies as a white male. And so I just think the race part of this is completely ridiculous and irrelevant. But on the, on the charge which people make, which is, you know, you cannot possibly blame Meghan for this. I'm not blaming her for anything, other than did she or did she not when she was armed with this information of her father being potentially a pedophile, did she do anything about it? And I'm not sure that we've seen any evidence yet that she did. Well, Piers, you made a fascinating comment at the beginning of your monologue saying that people had very much retreated into their silos. And of course, there's been a lot of talk over the weekend saying that public would now rally to Meghan that they would, I don't think that they will. I think most people, right mind people, think, my goodness, want awful, awful things find out about your father. As you say on a personal level, have sympathy for her. But then I think they will think, well, why were we told? It was Buckingham Palace, it was Kensington Palace, it was Fleet Street, it was the media that ruined her life that made her suicidal. Like we literally, she told Oprah Winfrey in her interview that in January 2019, she wanted to kill herself. That is what she said. For five years, they said, and she said, that the source of their suffering was the British press and the Royal Family. And we now know, don't we, Pears, that from January 2019, the pair of them were living with this incredibly dark secret that her father was alleged to be. A pedophile, no, as you say, Thomas Michael, denies everything. The crime story is kind of a matter for crime correspondence. And I know that Nick Parker, who you will know, Pears, of course, is an incredibly storied international correspondent. I mean, the idea that Nick Parker had the wool, I mean, short newspapers make mistakes. The son, of course, made a hideous mistake covering the Hillsborough disaster. But you know, learn a lot from that. The idea that Nick Parker had the wool pulled over his eyes by Thomas Michael, Jr. I think is kind of ridiculous. But the bottom line is that I think that ultimately, rather than people feeling sympathetic for Meghan, as the reality of this sinks in, that they knew, in 2019, that Thomas was a pedophile. And yet, they are blaming the Royal Family. It's then the Royal Family, a terrible family, that they were the cause that they were feeling so upset and having this suicidal ideation, all of that. It just, it just does not. Well, I would add, yeah, I would add. Yeah, let me bring Joe in, just to again say, if we, I want for the benefit of this panel for us to continue to presume in an innocence until there is a guilty conviction. So, you know, that he is an alleged pedophile, okay? And I think that's important. To be fair, to everybody involved. You know, Joe, what I don't understand about this is if, as Meghan Markle's first statement on this, which said that, you know, now you understand, basically, right, why I cut off my father. Well, that suited her original timeline of 2018 for when she got this letter. In fact, it turned out not to have been given to them until January 2019, which is six months after her wedding, at many months after she cut him off and wrote to him to stop talking to the media, and so on and so on. So, I think there's, there's stuff to explain there about the timeline, which because, ultimately, either it was the media's fault or it wasn't. And the world was told repeatedly, it was down to his collusion with the media. That was the problem. Also, on the ex-wife who sent this letter, interestingly, months and months later, she gave a full interview to, I think, the mirror or one of the British papers about all this, about Thomas Markle's senior, in which he said he was a lousy, deadbeat dad, lousy, deadbeat husband. But there was not a single suggestion that he'd ever abused them, right? So, she, this is the same woman making the complaints in the letter. Now, I don't know whether the paper took that out and she said it and they took it out, or whether she just didn't repeat it to the media, in which case, there would be questions for her, but she died two years ago. We can't go back and ask her, maybe the Sussexes can shed some light over these disparities. Maybe they can explain why Meghan continued years later in an interview to say, "I'll always be daddy's girl." Why did Harry say, in 2022, in the Netflix infamous Docky series, why did he say they, you know, he carries it on his shoulders, that the relationship between Meghan and her father broke down because if she hadn't met him, they'd, he would still be her dad. Why would you say those things? Years after you've read a letter in which he's alleged to be a pedophile. I guess. None of it, really, to me, with my journalistic hat on, makes sense at the moment. I agree with you that, as I say, there's a lot more confusion than there is clarity at the moment, but I wonder if playing Devil's Advocate for the moment, and you know I'm not a Meghan Apologist at all, but I wonder if there's an element of, there's been so much drama with the Sussexes, there's been so much aggro and aya and bad blood between them and the royal family. I do wonder if she's sitting on this absolutely egregious allegation that she wanted to be sure that she was absolutely true. She wanted to know if the authorities had followed this up and found any merit in this accusation before bringing potentially more embarrassment on the royal family. Is that not a credible line of investigation? And I'm interested because you have been one of the ones who's been so critical of her estrangement from her father. And I've always held back in my judgment on that, if I'm really honest. I think I said to you the other day on the phone, do you remember the first interview that Thomas gave at the announcement of their engagement? It was with you and Susanna on Good Morning Britain. And the question was asked of him, "What did you say to Harry when Harry phoned you "to ask about marrying Meghan?" And he said, "Just promise me you'll never lay a hand on her." Now, I'm not alleging anything on the back of that, other than that was such a red flag for me, and I've always thought in all of this criticism of Meghan being a strange from her father for whatever reason. We don't know the half of what's going on in that family, so I've never been able to get on the judgment bus on that one. Yeah, I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to say. I was very critical of it, as were a lot of journalists, because, like I say, journalists can only go on information within the public domain that we're aware of, right? Obviously, if it turns out Thomas Markle senior is a serious pedophile, as seems all the evidence is pointing to, if that turns out to be the case, he's arrested, he's charged, he's convicted and put in prison. Obviously, the whole narrative around why she cut him off looks very different, but I would come back to her statement initially last week when this first came out. She said, in 2018, which was the wrong year, letter was sent to the Met Police and Royalty Special Protection. It was subsequently shared with me. It made troubling and disturbing allegations against my father. I was given assurances that these were being investigated. I hope it can now be understood that, despite certain media publications, distortion over the years, any distance from my father and my choice to not allow him to have contact with our children was for one reason to protect them. Now, obviously, the children weren't born when this letter was sent. So it's completely explainable that once she got that letter, she didn't want him near her kids, but he doesn't explain why their public comments about him continued to present a narrative that it was all to do with his collusions with the media. I mean, I just, I can't make sense of that. So, Jason, let me bring you back in here. Can you make sense of that? Can you explain why they would continue to say those things about him if they genuinely believed not just that he was a pedophile, but they couldn't let their kids near him in case he abused them? So, my father wasn't a pedophile, but I have five sisters, and one of my sisters had a very different image of the father that we both shared. That was very different than mine. And she didn't have a different image of him until after he, unfortunately, passed away because she had to reconcile with all of the things. And my thing is, you know, whatever she thought about the image of her father, the image she wanted her father to be, every girl grows up with an idea of who she wants her dad to be, or who she thought her dad was. I don't know all the timeline of every comment that was ever made about her father. What I know about is the actions that she took to protect her own children from this deplorable human being. We're talking about a lot of assumptions of which we don't know. I thought the lady who just spoke, her comments were extremely fair and objective. And I think how we started this was going back to the fact that the police department has not been transparent, has not shared anything. And Harry's family, I mean, they're the, they're the world family. You know, and when I said race earlier, let me be very clear. There's not one wife that lays down with her husband and doesn't share every intimate detail of her life with her husband. At least I would assume that she doesn't. So I would think there would be share, it would be Harry and Megan. Both of them have information probably that if we're going to assume there's more information out there that's not being shared. But we're being overly critical of the woman that I think the guy just said, said that the, she felt suicidal as it relates to how she was covered in the media or treated by the media. So I don't know, I'm a little bit more objective in the sense that, yeah, I think that the responsibility is with this guy who allegedly did some bad things. And the police department that is either not followed up properly, not communicated across agents who are not been transparent with the public. But I don't know, I don't have enough information as I say here today to say Megan is responsible for this in any way. No, obviously she's not responsible or to blame. And people are deliberately misconstruing what people like me are saying about this. They are big on accountability, the pair of them. They have repeatedly said the royal family should be accountable for their actions. They've also repeatedly called them a very callous family who denied her treatment for suicidal thoughts. They accuse them of being racists. And then the battle ever since, none of those claims appeared in Harry's book, which remains incredibly mysterious, unless you assume, as I did, at the time, and said publicly, which ended up costing me a job that I really love doing on the morning show, when I said, "I don't believe this." Those claims have never been repeated. She has never said again, "I had suicidal thoughts "and I was denied any treatment by the palace." She's never repeated that. Again, why? Why have they never repeated the fact that they thought the ball found their way? I think you're fabulous. I don't think you should have been fired, and I'm glad that you did get fired because now you're here and we're able to share this time with you. I don't think she needs to continue to talk about how many times she wanted to kill herself. I mean, listen, the king is literally land next to the woman. No, that's not what I said. That's not what I said. - That's what I said. No, no, no, hang on, Jason. - No, no, no, Jason. Jason, Jason, I love you, Jason. I love you, I do. I do. I think you're a great guest, but you can't keep misquoting me. I'm very careful, but I thought about this show, because I realise a lot of people have been watching it. I thought carefully about how I want to say things and what I actually mean. And what I actually mean is, yes, it's perfectly okay to feel compassion for Meghan Markle, if it turns out her father's a pedophile, and I would be very happy to do that. But it's also fair to say that they showed no compassion to the royal family when Prince Philip was dying and then the queen died. When they were allowing it to be repeated out there, they were a bunch of callous racists. And it's significant to me that Harry never repeated any of that in his book. They didn't repeat it in any of their other media appearances. It was like they never said it. And I think that is very disingenuous. So when it comes to accountability, they are very, very hot on the royal family being held accountable for things they've alleged to have done or not done. And here when it comes to themselves and incredibly serious information, they were told in January 2019, I'm just curious whether they applied the accountability logic to themselves and thought, what should we do in this position? And is the answer that they did nothing for six years? I don't know the answer, Jason. It may be they did do things, they did follow up with the police and they got nowhere, in which case they should tell us. OK, but I guess my point is that, I mean, I'm not as familiar with everything that happens on the other side of the pond. But I do love the UK and I love traveling over there. But we've seen a history of how the country has kind of treated princesses or people that don't fit with the royal family. We've seen what happened with Princess Diana and I just don't want to see it happen with Megan. Whether it's by suicide, whether it's by any other action other than her own timeline that God has for her. And I think that, you know, often when I hear about her, I don't see or hear the person that I read about when it comes to the press over there talking about her. I think what is she supposed to do with this guy with her dad? What is Harry's supposed to do beyond what they've already done? The police need to do their job and the courts need to have a chance to try him. And if he is found guilty, you know, they should do whatever they do with pedophiles over there and tell us so we can deal with our president and those that are in the Epstein files in our country. Well, if he is found guilty, it would be in the United States, I would imagine, all the Philippines. So that it won't be an issue for the UK system. I want to bring in now another guest, a Kinsey Scofield, host of Kinsey Scofield, unfiltered Kinsey. Welcome back to Uncensored. What is your view of all this? I mean, I agree with you. I think that if Megan knew these allegations in 2019, as a working royal, she had a responsibility to at least tell the royal family to brace for impact. And I can't find a single person connected to the firm that knew anything about this letter or the allegations against Thomas Markle, senior. You know, if she held the skeleton in her closet, and instead of using her newly acquired platform to champion vulnerable children, she chose to try to destroy the British royal family via Netflix and complain about Catherine not sharing her lip balm with her. A cynical person might suggest she was creating a diversion to distract from her own sinister family allegedly innocent until proving guilty. But I agree with a lot of the people on this panel that she had a responsibility to either pursue the police and ensure that they were actually investigating these claims or tell the British royal family what was going on so that there could be some work happening behind the scenes. Yeah. And it's not a question of blaming people, I don't think. Is it, Kinsey? It's more a question of they, like I said, they repeatedly want others held accountable for actions. And yet here, I just think if you let this play devil's advocate, let's say it was another member of the royal family, say it was Prince Andrew, now Andrew Mambatt and Windsor, and they were in this situation. What would the Sussexes have said about it? That is simple, why didn't you turn your body? I just think it's a question of actually doing the right thing. And it looks to me like they did nothing. Maybe they did. Let me bring Mark back in. From a legal perspective, where would this, in the end, where would the jurisdiction be for any court appearance, etc? All be in the Philippines, where the alleged crimes mostly took place, or could it be that because some of the crimes may have taken place in the United States, where he was the United States citizen, in terms of the stuff found on computers that were then taken to the Philippines and so on. Now, where would it likely end up in a courtroom? It will be in a courtroom solely where there's jurisdiction and jurisdiction happens where crimes have occurred. So it starts with the Philippines. If that's where he allegedly possessed child porn, that's clearly the number one obvious place. Then the question is, did he, again, innocent until proven guilty? We don't know. But if hypothetically, any of the stuff was sent, where was it sent to? If anything was sent to the US, now the FBI could become involved. But I do want to address something that was said earlier. The, this burden on the marbles to, well, did they do enough? Did she do enough to get law enforcement to do something? Listen, I've represented many victims over my 34 year career. It is rare to get anything from law enforcement other than we've got enough cases. Wait, that happened where? Yeah, that's not our jurisdiction. And so my guess is if she was told we're conducting an investigation or an investigation is being conducted, that should suffice. That's about all you're going to get from law enforcement. They're not going to say, wait a second, this happened in the Philippines. We don't have enough cases here. We're going to go over there with great resources. We're going to go over there and we're going to investigate because maybe there's some tie to our jurisdiction. It just doesn't happen. That's fantasy. I suppose here's this point, though, isn't it, that in five or six years, you would expect if you'd had that letter to somebody to say, what's going on with that? Has it been any follow-up? We don't know if there's actually been any of that discussion. Yeah, we don't know. That's a thing. You know, that doesn't mean there wasn't follow-up. Yeah. No, I agree. And I think I mean to me bring Tom in here. I mean, I agree. I think what would be really helpful for everybody is that everything is now made public. There's no reason why that 2019 letter and the 2025 that it can't now be published. They've been widely reported. And one of the issues here, Jason's touched on this, is a lot of stuff gets lost in the wash and it's hard to know what to believe and not to believe and so on. Well, the best way is just to put it out there. I've seen no reason legally why these things can't be published yet. There's no ongoing active charging or arresting or any of that happening at the moment. So now you could put these out as out there. Well, yes. And, amusingly, the Sussex's overworked spokesperson has said that the reason they can't give any details about the letter is to protect the privacy of the sender who requested an unlimited, although we all know that the sender is dead for a couple of years, but there we go. Right. I do understand his right. They couldn't go charging out public with this unproven information about Thomas of, you know, potentially actionable, but let's be honest, it is incredibly convenient for them that they couldn't breathe the words about the horrific alleged behavior of her father. Because any such disclosure would have completely destroyed this very, very profitable narrative that their mental anguish in 2019 was exclusively the result of this hideous chimera of the rapacious British tabloid media with his head and a heartless and cruel royal family in the body, working in lockstep together to destroy, you know, saintly, Harry and Megan and they made $100 million from that narrative. So now it's about profit. I think it's all about money. You know, you weren't living that life. You know, we saw the press over their kill presses. Diana, what are you talking about? So they just got in a room, Harry and Megan got in a room and say, we're going to I bring up something that you don't like, you start interrupt. No, the lady next to me came in hot assuming all these. I know Halloween's around the corner, but all these skeletons that she thinks Megan has, you want to frame her as this nasty conniving manipulative maniacal black woman that came in to take down the royals. When y'all killed your own princess. So what are you talking about? Come on now. I don't think this was $100 million. -This is-- -Okay, Jason, just to be clear. Just to be clear, Jason, who do you think kill Prince Isdana? I mean, haven't you watched enough of the crown to figure it out? Go look at all the documentaries online. It's all right there for you to see. -I don't want to-- -Don't let the crown that has the ghost of Diana. -Let's take that. Let's go back. -Let's go back. Let's go back to the black woman that plighted $100 million and say, "No, no, let's take with the wife." -Let's take with the wife. -Hey, Jason. -Let's take with the family. -We're going to talk about questions. -Hang on, please. -I don't wish all of you can have an opinion on that. -Everyone's talking to Jason. -Jason. -I mean, obviously, I hear what you're saying. -No, Jason, you can have your opinion. -Yes, I'm here. -Jason, I would just like you to explain, who kill Prince Isdana, do you think? -Who do you think killed her? -No, no, you tell me. You said she was-- We killed her. Who? -Who did? -I already said it. I don't need to keep saying. I didn't say you did, but, I mean, obviously, we-- I mean, isn't Jason a guy that killed Queen of the UK well before she was actually dead. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Your boss talks. Who do you say for you sitting your box and wait your turn? Can she and you go ahead? What'd you say? Yeah, Jason, who in the UK killed Princess Diana? I mean, obviously, the media did, but I mean, we could go on and on and on with that. You guys have the British media. I mean, obviously, the British media. Let me tell you, let me give you a history. I think you all would love to see Meghan go herself. Let me give. So that way, Jason, profit off that story for years to come. No, nobody would like to, nobody would like to see that. It's a complete lie again. But the lie about Diana is very, you're lying, you're lying about, Diana is very egregious. Not tell you why. Diana was Diana. Diana was, you guys, your driver didn't know where he was going. No, no, the driver was drunk and was speeding. That is what came out of the inquest. That is why the lost control of the car. That is why she died. She wasn't killed by the British media. They weren't there. That's it. End. Well, we don't know what's really missing from it. They didn't hit all the way over here like that. That's not what we think on this side. Maybe that's the story. You also just hit you. Why don't you go back and read? Why don't you go and read the inquest findings? It doesn't matter what we read. Because this is really about shaping narratives. This is all about shaping narratives. This is not about what we read. You're lying. We read that she wrote a letter. We read that she tell the police. We read that Megan is then everything she can. And we're still making it an issue about what they're making do or not do. So this is all about narrative building. It's because it's because it's because you keep use, because no, it's because you keep making false statements. You said she reported it. She didn't report it. Kinsey, they'll be bringing you back in here. This is the problem. I mean Jason wants us to take what he says credibly about the Sussexes and yet he seems to be under the impression the British media killed Princess Diana in a French underpass. When in fact, it was a drunk speeding French driver. Everybody knows this. And she wasn't wearing her seatbelt and there were no British press there at the time. Exactly, exactly. No, I mean, the issue with the Sussexes and now we're blaming Princess Diana for not wearing a seatbelt. No, you're the one that brought up Princess Diana and she probably should have been wearing her seatbelt. Yes, I put my seatbelt. Why did you bring up her not wearing a seatbelt. So now you're blaming her for killing like for dying. Jason, let me remember when you prematurely killed Queen Elizabeth thoughts and prayers. I don't really feel like you're nobody saw the Queen after that. So God bless you. That's not good enough. Liz trust the Prime Minister certainly did see the Queen after that friend. Liz trust the Prime Minister at the time. I mean, we can go on and on and on. I'm not talking about the Prime Minister. You said Princess Diana died because she didn't have her seatbelt on. Look, listen, I had my opinion. I shared it. Now you had shared yours somewhere and there's the truth. Okay. Well, I don't think that this has anything to do with Meghan Markle's race. I think it has everything to do with accountability. And if you're a white woman, you wouldn't. Well, so as Meghan, Meghan is partially a white woman and nobody is trashing her feet. I know. And my mother was white. I get it. My mother is white because she and I both shared that were both white side of her family. It's the white side of her family being called trailer trash. It's not the other side of her family. It's the white side of her family. Okay, let me bring Joe back in. Joe, look. No, it's all right, Jason. I'm coming to you know, give others a chance to talk. Joe, what happens now? I mean, it's interesting watching, I've been struck by quite a few female columnists in Fleet Street racing to apologise to Meghan. I'm not entirely sure what they're apologising for. Maybe you would only apologise if you knew information like this and then still wrote that you thought it was something else because that's what they were telling the world. If people tell you it's XYZ, I mean, it turns out to be something else. Well, I'm not sure where the apology tool comes. It's fascinating, isn't it? Because I think when it comes to the substance, which is in particular, it's like you have to pick a team and I don't like picking a team. I like to take the events as they occur and as objectively as possible. Yeah. And I feel like, you know, I do think that Meghan is due some sympathy, as we've been saying about what's going on with her father. But the narrative that's come in like an avalanche over the weekend, therefore the media must apologise for everything, for every perception of Meghan, for everything that we've ever sort of like said or criticised or speculated. I don't think what's going on with her father now has anything to do with things that the the susses have accused the royal family of, things that the susses have done in the name of commercialising the royal family and their titles. I don't feel like we have to lump it all in and say, you know, you yourself used to say, I'm sorry to bring up Diana again, but, you know, like Camilla was always painted as a devil. Diana was always painted as an angel and neither of those things were true. Well, you know, I'm not here to canonise Meghan yet either. But I think I would love to see a world where we see the truth come out and we see justice be done, whatever that shape it should take with Thomas Markle or not. But it doesn't, I don't think that the British public are going to suddenly forgive being, you know, branded as racist by this couple and branded as a dreadful lot of people in the wake of this. Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, Tom, the people, you know, I don't think, but I don't think they call the people of Britain racist. I think they definitely called out racism in the royal family. They did call out racism in the royal family in a very vague way that's never been substantiated. But they did also imply that a lot of Meghan's criticisms in this country, but they've been doing it yourself right now. Yeah, no, I agree with that last statement that you made. Yeah, I think the criticism of racism over there goes back all the way to the history of the blood diamonds I spoke of last time I was here. So let's be clear. I think you can cast an image of what you believe you're experiencing and if people feel like, yeah, but Jason, I think the thing is, it's like, you know, I was there. I was there on the ground the day that Meghan and Harry got married as a lot of our panel were. There was nothing but wall-to-wall joy in this country for that union and for the excitement that it brought to this whole new refreshing spin-up would bring this modernity that it would bring to the royal family. And then the public felt insulted by Meghan's reframing of her welcome into Britain and I'm sure Peers, you would agree with me there. It suddenly became that we were all against her and that suddenly this was the worst place on earth to be. So now we're all as puzzled as anyone else as why she's why they're back. And I'm also wondering if this puts that whole story into another context, the fact that they sort of like rushed back on a plane in July. Well, I run a business, but I was saying that waiting for the man. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let me just say something because wait a minute, as the only black person on your panel, let me say this for all the black people watching all the Africans in London, all the Africans in Paris, their racism hits different for black people. It may not be overt. Okay, there may be covert racism. Just in our institution where you had Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and Joe Biden staffers going in Kamala's bathroom and crapping and doing things in a vice president's office that you probably shouldn't because they probably looked at her a little less than when she held the second highest office in our country. So let's be clear that racism is not always overt where somebody calls you the N word or does things to you that is in your face. And if she got in after being embraced by the beautiful people of UK and got in and had a different experience, why should she be shamed a silence? She should call it out. And God bless her for doing so. Well, you know what? The here's the problem with that. A two words in relation to Kamala Harris, Barack Obama. So America wasn't racist to Barack Obama. It voted him in twice as president. She was just a useless candidate. Yes. Sorry. Fact. And secondly, as I was trying to say before you jump in, on the day of the wedding, I wrote a very, very big piece for the mail on Sunday newspaper about the wedding saying how fantastic it was to finally have a biracial wedding in the British Royal family. There are exclusively white family and suddenly they look very different and more reflective of the changing color of the country, which has been a very multiracial country for a long period of time now. And from all the reports which have been coming out in the last 30 years is one of the least racist countries in the world. So she couldn't have come to a more welcoming place. The problem began after the marriage when they began doing a lot of things which annoyed people. They began preaching about poverty and having half a million dollar baby showers. They began preaching about the carbon footprint using Elton John's private jet like a taxi service, and so on and so on and so on. Attacking the media when it's suited them, using the media at the same time when it's suited them, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It was the endless series of things they were doing which smack people of rank hypocrisy, which annoyed them. And eventually-- - And just to be clear, how are we annoying people as well? - And now they come back with their tail. - Yeah. - Right, and now they come back with a tail between their legs, and it's not about her skin color, because I feel the same way, about both of them. Right, and when it comes to accountability of what they did or didn't get told, and what they did with that information about Megan's father being a pedophile, it applies to both of them. They were a married couple when this happened. Right, so they share the accountability issue applies to both of them equally, the white guy, and the biracial woman. End. Anyway, that's the end of that debate. We've run out of time. Thank you all very much indeed. Royals uncensored will be here on Thursday with more on this. A lot can happen in three days on this story, as we've seen. I hope we get to hear it all, get to hear it all, and to be clear, no one's blaming Megan Markle for what a father may or may not have done. That's going to be on him. And I hope the full justice wheels now wheel in, and he's either guilty or he's not. And if he's guilty, trust me, as someone who's interviewed him a few times, I will come down on him like a ton of bricks as I would any pedophile. Thank you all very much. For a long time now, we've been racking our brains about how we can bring you even more uncensored without making our small team work 24 hours a day instead of the current 23. And with that lofty goal in mind, we are thrilled to announce the uncensored club. It's the new home of extra content, which only you get to see. Do you mind if I try anything? What in the hairy depths of Harry Hill is going on? It was not intrinsically nasty. Can he put a curse on you? I can't put curse on my blood out. It's a very good one. Plus out for your episodes and exclusive insights, as well as priority access to AMAs, live events, and big interviews without me. You can support the show that you love most or get the hold on. We know that you watch and listen to all of our shows for all sorts of different reasons, and we've made sure there is something here for everybody. The Uncensored mission has always been to inform, educate, irritate, and entertain by giving you every side of every story. Real honest opinions you might not find anywhere else. You may disagree with my views, some of our guests and our hosts do too, but that's the point. We're independent and nobody tells us what to say. That sounds like you, but join the club.