Piers Morgan Uncensored - ‘LETHAL Consequences’ Bombshell Claims Link BBC Interview To Diana Death

Episode Date: November 27, 2025

It’s 30 years since the BBC televised Martin Bashir’s infamous Panorama interview with Princess Diana - and now Andy Webb is claiming in his new book ‘Dianarama’ that it may ultimately have led to her death. He joins Piers Morgan to discuss the reasons why. Meanwhile, Meghan Markle has been forced to deny reports that she stole a $1,700 dress as her new Christmas special on Netflix gets dismal reviews - and people are still rolling their eyes over the Harper's Bazaar interview in which she was formally introduced to her interviewer as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. And the most disgraced former royal of all Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has been told by the Prime Minister that he should testify in the US about Jeffrey Epstein. Joining Piers and Andy to uncover all these stories; royal commentators Katie Nicholl, Kinsey Schofield and Tessa Dunlop. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Mando: Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @shop.mando and get $5 off off your Starter Pack (that’s over 40% off) with promo code PIERS at ShopMando.com! #mandopod Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

BBC bosses could have gone to Diana and briefed on what they knew, and if they had, very, very plausibly, her life would have followed a different course, not towards Paris. The consequences of the interview were lethal. We looked at the Diana interview and the Michael Jackson interview as examples of what a superstar journalist he was. Truly, we can't trust any media. Here's the BBC swooping in to confirm that narrative. I like this idea, this message that she's sending out about being perfectly imperfect. She also says an interview, I like the community of work and the connection.

I think a lot of it is in my DNA. This is the same Duchess of Sussex who makes hundreds of millions of dollars trading off her royal status without doing anything for it. Mega Markle has been forced to deny reports that she stole a $1,700 dress. The sensational claims have been completely overshadowed by the dismal. more reviews for her new Christmas special on Netflix. And on the subject of disgraced former Royals, the Prime Minister, says that Andrew Mountbatten Windsor

should testify in the US about Jeffrey Epstein. So I'm going to discuss with my royal panel. We begin with a book that's making a lot of headlines around the world. It's 30 years since the BBC televised this infamous interview with Princess Diana. Andy Webb's new book, Diana Rama, claims it may ultimately have led to her death. Well, welcome to all of you. Andy, it's an amazing book.

You were the first person to break this story, centering on the former panorama reporter Martin Bacier, who of course secured the infamous, famous, one of the most famous interviews in history with Diana in 1995. I remember it very well. I was editing the Daily Mirror at the time. It was a bombshell. But it wasn't what it seemed. And the reason for that, which is the cornerstone of your book, is that Bashir faked bank statements,

which he showed to Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, to try and persuade him of his credentials and who was working against his sister, suggesting that people close to Princess were being paid by the security services, embellished other stuff involving other members of her team. And ultimately, it was that that led her to do the interview. And the reason why people say that may have led to the circumstances

of her death within the case. two years, is it started the spiral of her exit really from royal protection and everything that went, which was largely down to the lack of trust that she had with people from the royal household and people that were for them. So this was an incredibly consequential interview, and, as your book establishes, an incredibly consequential and disgraceful stitch-up by Martin Bashir. Have I categorised this correctly, would you say? Yeah, very much so. Except I have. I have. I might not even go as far as to call it an interview.

An interview suggests, you know, somebody sitting there legitimately seeking information. Wasn't that. It was because of the plan that Martin Bashir had come with. It was effectively a performance, you know, a double act that poor old Princess Diana found herself taking part in that she didn't realize. So yes, your summary quite right. But as I say, let's think of it that way. Let's think of it that way.

It wasn't a genuine, you know, that interview like that. How did you first get to hear that there were serious question marks about what Bashir had done here? Well, I was working at the, I worked for the BBC for about 20 years. When Bashir was doing his thing, my desk was probably about 100 feet away in 1995, in the White City building. Now, at that point, I didn't have any idea whatsoever.

But really quite sooner, you know what organisations alike. in the corridors. Especially the BBC. Absolutely, especially in the BBC. The bad smell that began to permeate the building over this interview was really quite pronounced. And that, you know, I've kind of wondered, one thing, we would get on this far, but Samir Shah,

who we hear about a lot of them currently chairman of the BBC, at the time this all went down, he was kind of number three in the Pecking Board. We have John Bert, we have Tony Horn, the Semiahar. Now, I don't know how. how much Mr. Shah knew about the awful things that had gone on, but there were many, many people in the BBC who knew something really bad had happened here.

Is it conceivable that the current BBC chairman knew nothing about what had gone down? I think if he did know nothing about what had gone down, it would be most odd because a lot of other people knew about stuff. As I say, I can't sit here and make allegations about Mr. Shah, but I'm just saying. But it's very interesting that he was number three at the time. Number three.

and he's now chairman. I mean, just overseen the removal of the director general and the head of news over, you know, the scandal involving the incorrect editing of a Trump speech. But interesting that the man that pulled the trigger on their departure is, at the very least, part of the executive team when this was all happening. I mean, I can say to this year, in the book, there's only a couple of times where I sort of go off the record. One of them was this. that at this moment, an extremely senior and knowledgeable member of the broadcasting community, about a year ago, 18 months ago, went to Samir Shah and said, look, you have got to get your arms around the Diana Gate scandal, if you like.

You've got to do this, but he hasn't. Ignored it. Fascinating. The book contains a lot of revelations, but obviously the most significant person in all this is Bashir himself. he was the religious affairs correspondent. This was a guy supposedly kind of purer than pure, even by BBC standards. Was he always a rogue, do you think?

I mean, was this just in his DNA? Or did he just pick on this big thing because he wanted the prize of the interview? I mean, Pierce, you know, you've been a senior editor. I've been a journalist for decades too. Sometimes, unfortunately, there are rogues. And they go too far and they act, you know, they have no moral compass if you're like, Martin Bashir was one of those. To me, the really important issue here, and always has been, it wasn't so much the terrible things that Bashir did vis-à-vis Diana. That was really, really terrible.

But Diana had been through scrapes before. There was Squidgeegate, there was Oliver Hoare, etc. The key moment for me in this is the moment when BBC bosses, the grown-ups, the people with the moral compass, if you like, when they knew what they knew and they could have gone to Diana and briefed on what they knew. And if they had, very, very plausibly, her life would have followed a different course, not towards Paris. And the really damaging thing about this was the terrible broken trust it created with some of the people closest to Diana. Patrick Jefferson, who was her private secretaries or ran her. I knew him. Well, he was to take him. He was to take him. He was talking about this when he was talking about your book last week. And, you know, it really fractured

their relationship because she couldn't trust it because she had been shown documents purporting to suggest that Patrick Jefferson had been paid for... 40,000 pounds. Yeah, 40,000 pounds. Back in the 90s, that's maybe $100,000 plus now for information about his boss. And if you're dying, and you're already pretty paranoid about the media as she was. You know, I knew pretty well, actually, by the time she died and had lunch with her and talked to quite a lot about stuff and she just had a raging paranoia about the media with good reason.

Everyone was trying to get a piece of this superstar. But he, Bashir, was concocting through these fake documents a whole sense that almost everyone around her couldn't be trusted. So that only he could be trusted so that that's why she should do the interview. That was really his modus operandi.

Absolutely. And in the words of Charles Spencer, her brother, you know, He helped me very much, working me closer on the book. And I put the question to him, you know, how broad, how strong, how real is that line from Panorama to Paris? And he answers very, very responsibly and calmly and ends by saying, do you know what, the consequences of the interview were lethal. Because when what happened, what you described happened happened, she got Patrick Jefferson out,

her chauffeur out. The doubts and worries that she already had about the sort of the fallness. protective security mechanism, gone. So there, a little over 18 months later, she's in Paris, the car's been driven by a guy who's drunk, has he drugs, whatever he's done, he's speeding, and she dies. Now, if you are Prince William, and you think that there's even only a 30, 40% chance, 40% chance that his mum would not have been there if the BBC had done what they should have. Forget she's a princess.

Do you not have a duty of care to a member of the public who, you know has been shown forged documents by somebody who you know is a serial liar. So you don't have to be Charles Spencer or indeed Diana. You just have to be a member of the public and you have that duty of care to brief them. They didn't do it. So does Earl Spencer inherently believe that it was only within two years that Diana was dead? Does he believe that there is, as you put it, this direct line? pretty much, she probably, probably on balance, wouldn't have died in that underpass in Paris

if it hadn't been for the events that were catalyzed by this interview. Mando deodorant is a game changer. I've been using it and I won't go back. Total freshness for up to 72 hours and the scents are exceptional. Bourbon leather is an instant classic, clean and bold. It's safe anywhere on the body. It's baking soda-free and it's ideal for after the gym. Mando's starter pack is perfect for new customers.

comes with a solid stick deodorant, cream tube deodorum, two free products of your choice, and free shipping. As a special offer for you, new customers get 20% off-site-wide with our exclusive code. Use code peers, P-I-E-R-S at shopmando.com for 20% off-site-wide and free shipping. Shopmando.com. Please support our show and tell them that we sent you. Mando has got you covered. I put it that he has a horrible suspicion that she might not have died. because would she have been there with Dodey fired if Patrick, Jeff, in particular,

and Charles Spencer says specifically Patrick was the person, he said, Diana, she could be material, she could be emotional, she could be difficult in the circumstances. If Patrick had still been on the scene, he can't see a world in which his sister would have been where she was. And then there's the practicalis, just like the chauffeur, security, etc., etc. But it's the fact that that is plausible at all. You can imagine how heartbreaking that is. Well, there's also, I mean, there's a stunning revelation which reminded me of something that happened

when I was editor of the mirror, which was based on this, actually. You reveal that Bashir told Diana that Prince Charles, as he was then, the king now, was trying to have her killed. First of all, just tell me about that. Well, we know this from a, there was a three-way meeting it was actually September the 19th, 1995. It's actually the first time that Bashir actually meets Diana, three-way meeting herself, Bashir and Charles Spencer.

And at this meeting, most extraordinary things came out. As you say, yes, Prince Charles wants to have Diana and Camilla killed. Both of them killed. Why? Because he's pursuing an affair, all nonsense, of course. He's pursuing an affair with the nanny, Tigger. Legg-Birk, people may remember the name. And so he wants them to be taken out so that he can marry her.

In that same meeting, stories like Prince Edward then unmarried, has AIDS, and he's being treated at the Royal Marston Hospital. Prince William has been given a, if you know, like a James Bond watch that can bug conversations in the room. Extraordinary range of lives. And the purpose of this again was what? The purpose of this was to, and one other thing, that the queen was going to abdicate in six months' time. So the purpose of it was this, to sort of fill Diana, to terrify her.

And then what happens? You're terrified. I might as much. How can I get you out of this, Diana? I tell you what's going to happen. You're going to go on panorama. You're not going to tell them all the stuff, you know, about the death plots. You're going to do two things.

You're going to show Buckingham Palace that you're tough, and you're not going to go. anywhere. I'm not going anywhere. And at the end of the interview, which is exactly what she does, she throws a massive question mark over Charles' suitability to take the throne. So Diana has been assured that the queen is going to abdicate April 96. If the panorama plan, if you like, carries through, what do you have? Well, you have, Charles takes the hint and goes off to Highgrove and does organic gardening or whatever he does, William takes the throne. In that scenario, Diana is the mother of the new king. Now, that is not a bad place to be.

Yeah, she becomes a kind of queen regent, consul, whatever they want to call it. A new queen mother. But that is what panorama was all about. That's what that was about. You might say, well, we know this. we know this because seven days before the panorama interviews recorded, Diana gave what Patrick Jefferson describes to me, as he describes it, was her last will and testament.

He said, if she washed up in the Thames one morning dead, people would know. I'll keep this as quick as I can, but Diana dictated to her lawyer, Lord Michigan, exactly how she saw things. Queen's going to abdicate murder plot, Meekamiller, Tiggily, Tiggy Legberg. She said had actually had an abortion. That's right. I remember all of this. All of this, all of this, yeah.

And I remember we had a story at the mirror, which contained a copy of a letter Diana had written in which she said, I think Charles is planning to have been killed in a car accident. And obviously it was complete nonsense, but it was actually this idea had been fed to her, it turned out, by Martin Bashir. We didn't know that when we published that story. So fascinating for me to see that that was the genesis,

of why she believed these wild things that were going on. Let me bring in the other panel members now. We're joined by Royal Commentator Katie Nicol, historian and royal author Tessa Dunlopin from Los Angeles, the host of the Kinsey Schofel on Filter, welcome to all of you. Okay, Tessa, this is pretty, I mean, it's pretty shocking and kind of very relevant,

because we're right in the middle of another panorama scandal. And for American viewers in particular, panorama is like 60 minutes. It's the flagship political current affairs show, of the BBC, the taxpayer-funded corporation. And so this is really shocking that 30 years ago, this incredible interview turned out to have been orchestrated by a guy literally having fake documents created

to spinelize all the key people around Dinah were betraying her, which then drove her away from them all and into the path of Dodie Fayette and then into the path of the Paris underpath and her death. It is devastating. And I speak as someone and Katie, too, young women at the time, and we looked at Diana in that interview

as someone talking truth to power. Right. She was the original woman who was nailing her colours to the mass and socking one to the establishment and all the time she was being manipulated. But to bring it right up to date, my question for you, and full marks, by the way, for the extraordinary thorough way

in which you've chased this down because I've taken legal proceedings against the Beebe and I know they're Catholic-esque. I mean, it's really hardcore. But I want to understand Prince William stands and he says that worse than this rogue reporter, Martin Bashir, is the great sadness that the BBC leaders look the other way.

I get the feeling that you think, unlike Lord Dyson, Lord Dyson referred to sort of woefully inadequate management, but that you think it's worse than that. It's almost deliberate on the part of the management that no one was held to account earlier. Can you stack that up for me? Why do you think that's the case?

Well, can I stack it up for you? William. No, William talks about leaders looking, BBC looking the other way. They're busy. Oh, shut up. No, no, no. The key thing is what William very carefully said, and I will say, you know, the book has not been written sort of in isolation, if you like.

I know wherever I speak here, what William said very carefully was that, leaders at the BBC who looked the other way. It wasn't that they looked the right way and their vision was unfortunately clouded. They looked the other way. But are you accusing the BBC of deliberate deception? I think that's what I want to understand.

I'm accusing the BBC of no more than William accused of, of looking knowingly, willfully, looking the other way when they should have looked someone else. I mean, the parallels to me with what's happened with this Trump speech thing are quite similar in the sense that they knew, right, a year ago, what had happened. And then there was just this elaborate long cover-up and attempt to stop people really finding out the truth.

And again, here, a much longer period of people knowing what had gone down or certainly seriously suspecting it, but not taking the appropriate action to bring Bashir to proper account. Because this only came out. When was it all blown out of the water? 2020. Right. But you're talking about, you know, this is 25 years later.

And I think what I'm trying to understand is in a world where there's so much disinformation and you can pick and choose whatever you listen to and you don't know whether to believe it. I like waking up in the morning and believing what I hear in the BBC. And what I think I'm trying to establish is, was this just because the BBC's ridiculously enormous,

their management took the foot off the pedal. Nobody held Martin Bashir to account. Time moved on and it kind of got lost in the weeds. Or was there something more mandatious than that? Oh, no, sorry. If you're saying, was their intent here? Yes. My view is absolutely those intent.

Because, I mean, unlike what they're called, Trump gate, had Martin Bashir been publicly nailed in 1996, shame for Martin Bashir, but a bigger shame still for the bosses who would have been out of the door in front of minutes. Well, let me bring Kinsey in because Martin Bashir ended up going to the United States and anchoring a show over there for NBC, I think it was. And he did that for a few years. He was a big celebrated television superstar off the back of this interview.

and one he did with Michael Jackson, which also has a lot of question marks about how he acquired that. What do you make of this? And in particular, obviously, there's a lot of debate happening in America about the BBC, about panorama, because of Donald Trump now suing for a billion dollars

over this editing of his January 6th speech to make it look like he actively incited the violence. What is the reaction in the United States to this? The reaction in the United States is, Specifically around the Trump scenario, truly we can't trust any media. You know, fake news, I think, started over here during the 2015-2016 campaign where Donald Trump would stand up during his campaign events and say, you can't trust the media.

And here's the BBC swooping in to confirm that narrative that he started over a decade ago. Martin Bashir, you're absolutely right, came over to the United States and was a superstar. He was a unique character. And we looked at him, we looked at the Diana interview and the Michael Jackson interview as, you know, examples of what a superstar journalist he was. So we have been disappointed to learn how he secured that interview with Princess Diana over the last few years. And, you know, I am frustrated when I reread some of Prince William's words in this book and how passionate and devastated he was over. the deception. And then to see Prince Harry turn in May 2025

and sit down with the BBC to talk to them about his security issues. To me, it's a lack of loyalty to his deceased mother. Yeah, I mean, look, Katie, I'm a big fan of the BBC for all its falls. Me too, by the way. I love waking up and listening to the Today program.

It's a great institution. Right, and it's kind of a unique institution where we pay for it, right? Whether that business model can sustain to the younger generation, I think, is a different argument. I think they kind of have to wake up and realize young people will not pay the license fee. And that's going to be a different question.

But, you know, there's so much great about the BBC. But the Trump thing was a massively self-harming thing that happened, which put it on the world stage. But this, to me, was way more insidious. This was way more deceptive, way more deliberate, way more planned. Because they knew what was going on. And even when they knew they didn't then interview when they could have done and said there has been an epic cock up, essentially, here.

We've got this wrong, and we're sorry. And I think when you reread those comments, as Kinsey was saying from William and also from Harry, I mean, listen, I don't agree with her and that he shouldn't have given an interview to the BBC. I actually think it's right that they move on. This is our public broadcaster, and he could give the interview to them. Yeah, I mean, they covered his wedding, for example, right?

They are the national broadcaster for the beginning. Absolutely. But when you hear them talk about the, you know, the huge traumatic impact it's had on them, and of course, for those boys, even as men now and fathers themselves, to know that something like this could have changed their course of history and fate. I think is really challenging.

Of course, for us as broadcasters, it plays into that self-doubt, duplicitous news gathering, deceit, all of the things that are not helpful from our position. And frankly, should have been dealt with a long time ago. I had this lunch with Diana two hours with her and Prince William in 96, so about a year after this interview. And at that stage, she stood by everything she'd said. But what was clear was it had a dramatic impact on how she wanted to lead her life going forward.

And she was talking about being free and working out who she could trust and couldn't trust everything. And that was all completely delusional because it was based on a false set narrative. On a lie. On a lie. She'd been peddled by this top BBC guy. I'm slightly less comfortable about the sort of direct line

that people, including you, have drawn. between what happened with that interview and her death. I'm not. I think it's quite clear. Well, Piz, as a tabloid editor, we could equally say, all the machinations and the illegal ways in which the newspapers were requiring information.

Sure, you can say whatever you want. Play with her mind. But the bottom line is she was not being driven by a Royal Protection Officer driver, right? And if she had been, there wouldn't have been a drunk French driver at the wheel speeding into an underpass that killed her. So the point being,

the consequences of that interview included the removal of royal protection guys because she didn't trust them because she'd been told by Bashir they were on the take, including the drivers. So she would have had a royal protection driver who are the best in the world, right? So when you say there's no line,

there right there is one clear line. But there's 18 months between that Godforsaken interview and her death, a long time for a highly paranoid, very suspicious, understandably so given the way in which everyone was praying on her, a long time for someone to get in there and feed her false information

or to exaggerate and refuel that paranoia. I don't think that we can park her death at the hands of the BBC. I feel highly uncomfortable about drawing a lot of... Well, I'm afraid. I think we absolutely can park a lot of target at the BBC on this generally.

I mean, it's an absolute disgrace. Can I just like, how different do you think her life would have been? If there had been a deputation from Broadcasting House to Kensington Powers, they said, I'm terribly sorry, Your Royal Highness. It would appear that one of our guys, can't explain about, he's a liar, he's a forger, da, da, da, da, da, I'm terribly sorry, your Royal Highness. Now, at that point, a whole other can of worms would have been open.

I agree. But by which time she's already publicly platformed, all that she wanted to say, including Charles not being fit to be king. It would have been very hard for her to pedal back and rebuild relationships with the royal family. And let me ask you, what has happened to Martin Bashir? Well, he cannot work. He went on like sick leave when this all blew up. Yeah, absolutely. He was not actually sacked by the BBC at all for this.

Right. But no, he lives. I only say he lives in the south of England because why in it more? But anyway, he lives in a very, very pleasant market town, the south of England cannot get work. Charities don't even want him to have a blah, blah, blah, blah. And he potters around. But what he did was critical.

Well, let's put it this way. If using forged bank statements to win a, literally a 1.2 million pound interview, if that's, it appears that's not criminal. But it's so obviously fraud, right? I mean, so I'm just curious what I'll have it. It seems amazing that he's never really been held properly accountable for it. But it's a fantastic book. I mean, really fascinating. Having lived through a lot of it as an editor and talked to Diana a lot through that period, it's really interesting.

interesting, the timeline and remembering what she was telling me at the time and then reading here why she felt these things. And it's just so shocking. I want to switch gears. I want to talk about someone who likes to pretend she's the new Diana, which always makes me laugh. Our old friend, the Duchess of Sussex. Let's start Katie with this, probably hilariously, of all the revelations I've seen about Megamarka recently. the one from the Harper's Bazaar interview, which she does this sort of weirdly stark cover. But it's one of the quotes in there, which is that she, I'll read what Harper's Bazaar journalist said,

that when I enter, the house manager announces Megan Duchess of Sussex, even though we appear to be the only other two people in the house. I mean, there's that moment alone, right? They're utter delusion of this person. Yeah, it's a, it's a, it's a, a very grand and frankly unnecessary introduction.

You know, when you particularly consider, and the many times I met Harry, he never wanted to be, you know, the Duke of Sussex Oppress, he just was like, call me Harry. But of course, with Megan, it's not the same. And, you know, she capitalizes on that title as often as she can, whether it's promoting her Netflix series or letter writing or whatever it might be.

So on the one hand, you've got this woman on the cover of Harper's Bazaar. I have to say, I think she looks incredibly beautiful. It's a stunning shoot. I love the sort of minimalist makeup note. I like this idea, this message that she's sending out about being sort of perfectly imperfect and knocking herself down a little bit,

which I think people have probably been keen to see. The humble brag. But the whole thing is undone by that anecdote at the start by the journalist revealing this fascinating detail that she has introduced that way. Also, Kinsey, bring Kinsey back here. She also says an interview, I like the community of work and the connection.

I think a lot of it is in my DNA. This is the same Duchess of Sussex who fled actually work with the British community for which she gets her title of Duchess of Sussex doesn't do any official royal duties at all, but resides in California where she was from and makes literally hundreds of millions of dollars trading off her royal status without doing anything for it. I mean, that to me is just blatant hypocrisy again. And it's been the cornerstone of my criticism on the pair of them since they left, which is it's fine. If you want to leave, fine. Leave the royal family. It's no problem. You don't have to be.

We don't have a holding gun to your head. But what you can't do is trash the royal family, trash the monarchy on every platform you can get your hands on, and trade at the same time off your royal status and titles, including being introduced as you walk into a private home as Megan, the Duchess of Sussex. It's all baloney. Well, I think that this is the perfect opportunity for me to ask you where I can send you my gift, my as-ever cookies for you this Christmas. Somebody sent me a bottle of the wine as a joke, and it was completely, I am a bit of a wine connoisse. To say it was the opposite of a chatelle at all would be the understatement of the millennium. Today's show is sponsored by Oxford Natural, makers of the optimum day and optimum night all natural supplements.

Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them, with incredible results. Optimum day boosts your energy and supports weight loss throughout the day. Optimum night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep. They have countless success stories including from some very familiar faces.

England legend Michael Owen, we lost £40, AFTV's Robbie, we lost more than £100. To watch their full stories and many more, scan the QR code on your screen or visit Oxfordnatural.com slash peers.

And here's the best part. Use the code peers and get 70% off your first order. You get 70% off with the code peers. Well, you're right. I believe that in certain cases, I mean, she's doing this cover of a magazine, Harper's Bazaar, to promote her commercial businesses

and utilizing the title, which I think if you get down to the nitty-gritty violates the Sandringham agreement, that they won't utilize their royal titles to pursue commercial ventures. You know, because she's shilling, jam inside that article. It really, she doesn't focus on her

Netflix opportunities. She's really just focused on the product. But I understand what she's trying to do with the Harper's Bizarre interview, but I still think, as we wrap up 2025, that the article that really solidifies who the

Sussexes are is American Hustle by Vanity Fair, which came out in February, where they stress how difficult these two are to work with and to collaborate with. Harry's lack of work ethic and Megan's unrealistic expectations. I think he smokes a lot of dope, is what I hear. He's just permanently doped out, which if I was married to her, I probably would too.

Tessa, you're the great defender of the Duchess of Sussex. Actually, I'm less a defender of the Duchess of Sussex. I prefer rather to critique you as a journalist. Fine, but what's that I do with it? Because you introduce this entire segment, this show, putting Megan in the same category as Andrew Mountbaston. Oh, I didn't. Yes, you did.

You can go back and be the order. Yes, you said Megan and da-da-da-da-da, on fallen royals, and then you said, wait to Andrew. I have to do three different royal stories. I'm sorry, in the same way, you mentioned. All linked by the fact they're all royals, right? Let me be crystal clear about the difference. The Andrew scandal is infinitely worse, in my estimation,

than anything that Megan and Harry have come up. Thank you for clarifying that. By comparison, they are annoying mats on the tapestry of the royal family who constantly yap away for money and cause her. a lot of damage in their own way, but nothing like the damage of Andrew and the Epstein scandal. So, let me just be clear. Good. Glad we've clarified that. Okay. Now, as for her spread in Hapa Bazaar, which apparently was five years in the making, and I'm not surprised because she got literally cut up by the cut. And everywhere she goes,

people disses her and turn her words around. Of course she's going to performatively use her duchess title. Why does somebody who wants privacy do magazine covers? Oh, for God's sake. She's flogging a product. And incidently. Got it. Got it. Got it. No, love the honesty. Love the honesty. She's flogging a product. Yeah. So it doesn't really want privacy.

He just wants to use it. Sell the privacy when you can make money. On her own terms, Piz. You like public attention if it's on your terms and promotes your show. You don't want someone doorstepping you. You don't want someone phone hacking you. You don't want someone selling you forged banknotes

to get you to do an interview. Let's just be clear. There's appropriate publicity and inappropriate publicity. And we probably cross the line when Megan was here in the UK. There's also blatant departure. Andy, just want to switch to Andrew for a moment. It's clearly now being pretty well expung from all royal status.

But what's your view of that, of the Andrew scandal? You've obviously been immersed in the royal world with this book. But how damaging do you think that has been to the royal family and the monarchy? Obviously, I mean, enormously damaging. For what it's worth, the author of the Andrew book, that just came out, Andrew Loney. Yeah, we had him on here. Well, Andrew is actually my agent.

He's also a literary agent and he's a great writer. So, you know, to talk to it. I mean, to be honest, I want to kind of stay in my lane on this. Because my view on Andrew, I'm the bloke in the pub. Right. I mean, I think I know a lot about this one. And of course, he's a dreadful, dreadful human being and Sarah Ferguson. You know, what excuse is there?

That's what I think. But, you know. Fair enough. Katie, I mean, look, I do think it's been a drip, drip, drip scandal. The most damaging part of it was the leaks from the Epstein files, which came. keep coming thick and fast. Established he was lying in that interview with another big royal interview,

along with Emily Maitlis, in which he lied about the timeline. He stayed in touch with Epstein, as did Sarah Fulgson a lot longer than they told the world they had. But he lied about the picture. He tried to cast doubt the picture. Epstein, in his own words,

confirms that picture was taken. And so on and so on, so on. So once you know he's lying about those two things, you can pretty well assume he's probably lying about other stuff and probably lying then about the relationship we have with Virginia Dufray, which he's always denied having, despite giving $12 million dollars to someone he claims he never met. So the whole thing stinks to high heaven and probably has a way to run.

We haven't seen all the emails yet, right? So who knows who else gets dragged in? We saw Peter Mandelson, the U.S. ambassador for the UK. He had to resign because of emails from these leaks. So there might be others called up in this. But it's been, someone asked me from Australia, actually, today about the royal family and where they are with everything. It's very hard to think, even in the dinah years, of a more turbulent period, actually, than this, since Diana's death. But that was a one-off shocking thing.

This has been a series from the Prince Phillips death, the Queen's death, the King getting cancer. Harry and Meghan leaving, by the way. Queen getting cancer. The Sussex is leaving and trashing them. And then the Andrew Epstein scandal engulfing all of that in terms of severity. It's been incredibly difficult five, six years. Well, look, I mean, I've done this now for nearly six. 17 years and you know every time I think it's about to go quiet that as you say something huge happens

so it certainly keeps us busy but I think you know in terms of Andrew and what next I think you know the king is very aware that this is far from over I think by having him sort of in royal exile as it were at Sandringham he's he's out of the way but close enough for the king to keep an eye on him and I reported in Vanity Fair this week it's got a lot of pickup about Beatrice and usually being sort of slowly eeked out into the public eye as a way of testing the water by the king to see perhaps they can do something more. They shouldn't be, they should not be targeted for the sins of their parents. And they should not.

I really feel that. I know them both well. And sure, but why do they both get free grace and favour houses? Why? If their father isn't a free, well, their father isn't a free. They're princesses. They're princesses. Because if you have a royal family, they should live in palatial homes.

They also, they also do ad hoc royal work. And the point is you're talking about this sort of shifting landscape of the royal family. I mean, we all know that Charles wanted a slim down monarchy when he came. came to the throne, but had no expectation it would be the sort of anorexic looking family that it technically is. So there may well be a need for Beatrice and Eugenie. But I think they're all very well aware that the Andrew problem is far from behind them and they remain on higher. We're not going to see him at Christmas. We're not going to see him out in public. But if Congress opens these files and they're made public, like you say,

you know, if the truth comes out, then this big problem is... I want to bring Kinsey back in because Kinsey, the British Prime Minister Kea Starmer has call for Andrew to cooperate with the investigation. And that inevitably would mean he would give evidence under oath if she shows no sign of wanting to do. But is there a clamor for that in America? Do people in America feel that he should do them? They do.

But my argument is, to your point, when can we trust this man? When is he honest with us? Do we believe that he would get on a stand or sit in a private office and tell these people the truth, I'm not going to rally for it because I just don't think that it's in his best interest, so I don't think he would do that. I think that if he was forced to testify or to sit down with anyone, I'm not necessarily sure he would be honest, or I think he'd use every power he had to plead a fifth or whatever he was in the position to do. I just don't trust that he would be honest with our lawmakers. All right, test the final. It's worth of

I'm just to be in mind that Jolay Mack for one of the reasons why she's in prison at the moment is because she lied under oath. So on Andrew's head be it if he chooses to do that. And incidentally, you referred to him in Sondringham. To my knowledge, he's still in the Royal Lodge. Right. Yeah, Hittman, he will be moving. He will be. All right, we're going to leave you there.

Andy Webb's book, Diana Rama, the betrayal of Princess Diana. Highly recommend that, as Charles Spencer says, an important and forensic examination. And as Patrick Jefferson, the former private secretary to the Princess Diana said, a story we were never supposed to read. He had to leave working for after many years as a most trusted employee because of Martin Bashir's lies, which wreaked absolute havoc. And I do think there's a line from there to that Paris on the path. So, Andy, a great book.

Thanks for coming in. Appreciate it. Peers Morgan Unsensit is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensit on Spotify and Apple Podcast. 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.