Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Not My King? Breeding For Mankind

Episode Date: May 4, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers confronts protestors that plan on taking action during the coronation. Also on the coronation, Piers discusses the results of a poll that showed only 14% of Brits feel that Charles will do a better job than his late mother. Away from the coronation, Piers reacts to Elon Musk's belief that civilization will collapse unless we start having more children. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm Pierce Morgan, uncensored tonight. Protesters prepared our celebrations for the king's coronation. They just have a day off for once, put the country first. I'll take on two of them. He spent seven decades in training for this moment, but is King Charles the man to mend an embattled monarchy? We'll debate that with a sparkling panel of Serranos fines and Andrew Morgan. And then Elon Musk says civilization will collapse if we don't start having more children. Yes, more. I'm joined by the Silicon Valley hotshots who say they, are breeding to save mankind. Live from the news building in London,

this is Pearce Morgan Uncensored. Well, good evening for London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensored. Brits will celebrate the coronation of King Charles in many weird and wonderful ways on Saturday. After all, a royal occasion brings out Britain at its bonkers best. There's the royal superfans,

bedecked in Union flags, who've already begun camping outside the Mal, some for the last week, just for a fleeting glimpse of his... majesty and, of course, Camilla, his queen, in the gold state coach. Well, thousands of neighbours will stuff their faces and wave their flags, the street parties. Thirsty Patriots will guzzle 36 million pints in a weekend of merriment for the monarch, many of them in pubs, especially rebranded as the Charles and Camilla.

There are the royal scarecrows, the mad hatters, the transatlantic travellers, and of course the great many people who will just have a nice long weekend with an extra day off work. Now, you might not share the patriotic fervor that incites our best eccentric to pay homage to the crown. You might not agree with the monarchy. But the common theme with all the above is that it's celebratory and joyful and a bit of escapism and harmless. If you're making a King Charles mosaic from a thousand tiny Union jacks and have a tattoo of Camilla on your forehead, I salute you. If you're tired of the Royal Circus and you're spending this weekend in your shed, I understand that too. What I don't understand are people like this.

We just can't be, we can't afford to be wasting money on the royals, which operate effectively as parasites. Parasites. Really? 1,600 members of the Republic, well, what I could call Republic, will target a procession by wearing yellow T-shirts, radical anti-royalist students, known for defacing statues and invading Windsor Castle. One of them is here. Are planning events across the country, many thunderous dissenters,

the travelling to the capital, to wave placards, screaming, not my king. Well, bad news. Is your king whether you like it or not? And nobody cares about your principles stand. I mean, they might, but just have a day off. It is true that some people aren't that interested in the coronation. And don't think we should have a monarchy. It's also true that the large majority of this country in all the recent polls do.

And the last time I checked in a democracy, the majority wins. I can guarantee you that categorically nobody wants to see a bunch of attention-seeking protesters ruining the big day. You've got a right to protest, absolutely fundamental right to protest as part of a democracy. Boy, do we know about your right to protest. But to do it in the middle of an enormous national security operation, in front of the world's cameras, when we are showing the very best of our country, the pomp, the pageantry, the majesty, the brilliance of the world's.

of our military armed forces at their very best and the biggest procession we've seen since the Queen's coronation. We should be proud of this. And if you're not proud of it, we'll just be quiet. Have a day off. Go and paint your nose green again.

Whatever you want to do that gets you through the night, but just let us have this day. And we can have the debate again all over next week if you want. Well, joining me now from the No More Royals movement is Ros Posner, Human Rights, campaign on Republican Peter Tatchell. And talk TV presenter, Richard Tice, defending the nation today.

All right, Breez. You're wearing a T-shirt, which I think explains your view. No more Royals, which, by the way, you're completely entitled to wear in a free country, and you're totally entitled to not want a royal family. My question, which I'm posed in the monologue there, can't you just have a day off? I mean, seriously, because it's not just about the monarchy.

It's a bad question, right? It's about the entire world watching what are often really great days for Britain to show off something which is positive rather than for the last few years an unbelievable slew of negativity. So it's disappointing that you think all of us activists are really boring and miserable. It's totally untrue. Enlightening. Or just prove my theory. Okay.

First of all, you said nobody cares. Why am I here if nobody cares? The reality is the public opinion in Britain is totally shifting. We are looking at only a third of young people thinking the monarchy should continue. And in the general public, we're looking at 52%, only 52%, support the future of the monarchy. That's the lowest that's ever recorded. That's an IPAV stat. Only 52% voted to leave the European Union.

But we did because that's called a democracy. Right. And the majority. The point here is that's massively fallen within the last decade. It's clear where this trend is going. Now, I do appreciate your point about joyous events, right? That's important to me. I really strongly believe that all of the activism we ever do

needs to involve giving back to our communities and bringing positivity to people's lives. What we do is about creating hope. This weekend, I'll be in Oxford, putting on an event for my community. There'll be live music, my friend's band is going to play, and we'll be chatting to people how they feel about the monarchy, about republicanism, there'll be food. And importantly, we'll be raising money for local homelessness charities.

I live in incredibly unequal. This is all extremely virtuous, but of course you and your partner Imogen earlier this year jumped into the king's bed at Windsor Castle and posed for photographs while reading Prince Harry's book spare and eating junk food. We've got pictures of you there. What was the purpose of that?

So the purpose is to get people talking about, get people like you pissed off and shocked, basically. Really? We want people to be talking. I mean, no, you seem perfectly nice young lady. You've been incredibly well, and if I may say so, expensively educated, right, haven't you? You've had a lot of privilege in your life.

With scholarships, absolutely, yes. Right, I mean, you've gone to some extremely expensive schools. So just to talk about the... I'm not attacking, by the way. I've done the same with my kids. I'm just saying... I'd like to talk about the issue. You have enjoyed a lot of privilege.

Absolutely. And yet you seem to be incensed by privilege. So, yeah, that's a really important issue to me. How do you square the two things? I mean... Yeah, I absolutely have had a massive amount of privilege in my life. I'm not upper-class, Royal Rich.

Has it ruined you? Absolutely. That privilege? Can I just, could we just go to the protest? You did ask me a question about that. Yeah. The point was to communicate just sort of how, this juxtaposition between modern Britain and what that looks like and this archaic weird set of institutions that just doesn't sit

right with that. We wanted to bring attention to the issue because if we hadn't done that, I wouldn't be on this show talking about it. And I wouldn't have the opportunity to say to your listeners, we need a republic. We need a better democracy in Britain. Who would you have as president? Can I go into those issues? Because I'd really...

Give me a name. Okay, so... Who would do would do a better job as president than Elizabeth did his queen for 70 years? Yeah, so I... Give me a name. I appreciate your point. It's absolutely true that there are bad and good politicians.

Give me a name. I'm not the entirety of Britain. Give me any name or do. Who would be a good president? What I want to communicate... I'm asking you, because in America, we're about to have Biden, Trump for the second time. One is a doddery,

a male man who can't remember his own name. The other one is indicted. on criminal charges. That is where purely elected officials can take it. I appreciate your point. If I could just respond to it, they're absolutely abatting good politicians in any political system.

That's true. There are really good presidents. Ireland has a really good presidential system. There are many semi-presidential systems. There are parliamentary presidential systems. What I want to communicate here is if you're talking about we can't trust the people to vote for their president,

you can't call yourself a Democrat. That's fine. That's an argument you're entitled to make, but that doesn't sit with the, the principles of proxy. Can I just say this last time? Well, hang, I've given you a good old burst. You can come back in a minute. Richard. You talk about positivity. We've got billions of people around the world this weekend who are

going to look at Britain at its best, at its finest, at its most historic. This event will create hundreds of millions of pounds to the UK economy. The royal family every single year create in terms of brand value, the latest stats, about two billion a year. Right? The royal family, they give 85% of their assets, which is called the Crown Estate, to the British taxpayer, which they don't have to do, but they do, making huge profits. All of the offshore wind farms are on the land owned by the monarch. It's a billion a year of profits that goes to the British taxpayer. It's one of our greatest global assets. People admire it. They're respected. People are wanting to join the Commonwealth, all because of the royal family. A president who, who's... comes every four or five years, creates no brand value at all. If I might just respond to those points first, and then we can talk about presidential assistance after. You talked about pride, right? And I really appreciate you raising that.

The reality is only 9% of Britons are a great deal excited about the coronation. What about the billions of people around the world? Let me just finish that point. I think we have far better sources of pride in Britain than an unelected. Give me one. There are so many things my community I'm proud of. What community? How people have been... What community? Oh, come on. You're being facetious. I'm proud of how British people have.

What are you talking about your community? What do you mean? I'm talking about the people that I interact with on a day-to-day basis. Who is your community? With the greatest of respect. Hang-h-hag-h, hang-a. Who is your community? What are you? I don't get what you're trying to say about here.

What do you mean? What do you mean your community? My community is the people are up in all the universities of all-in-over- I know you're a young student at Oxford, right? Mm-hmm. Having a wonderful education, hugely expensive education, again. It's great. Good, well done. Well done on more privilege and elitism.

But let me ask you, let me ask you, who is the community that we're talking about? The people in that city and other cities... Young people are Oxford University. No, actually. I spend a lot of time working outside of the university. All right. Peter, you'd be very patient. Go ahead. You're intending to protest, aren't you, on Saturday?

Yeah. Why? A peaceful protest. It will not disrupt. People will be able to celebrate. We're a small group around Trafalgar Square. The whole rest of the route will be for people who want to celebrate the coronation. We accept...

Why ruin the party? We accept their right to celebrate, and we hope they all respect our right to protest. Yeah, but would you go to someone's dinner party and just jump through the window and start shouting at them while they're having a meal if you didn't agree with what they're eating? No. So why would you do this to a big party for the country when everyone's having a lovely time, even if you don't agree with it, can't you just take a day off? This part is still taking money. Let Peter answer. It's because, very simply, Charles is not only king, he is a head of state.

And even if people believe in him being king, he should not be head of state. Why not? The highest public office in the land should not be inherited by a privileged family. It should be open to anyone of merit to be elected by the people. But what executive power does the monarch really have now?

Well, it has huge reserve powers. No executive power. The answer is none. No executive power. Every law has to be signed by the monarch. That is purely a functional thing which happens And it's mandated, they don't ever say no. So they have no executive power.

What they do provide is soft power. They are one of the few things we have left in this country, frankly, right now, where we are world leaders. There is no monarchy to rival ours. There is nobody in the world as a nation that can put on the kind of show we're going to put on on Saturday. And frankly, I am proud of that. I think it's a great asset to our country. You are whitewashing the reality of royalism. Go on.

The monarch has. a secretive power called King's Consent, which has been used over a thousand times to block or modify legislation affecting the royals. That is, giving them derogations in terms of employment rights for their 700 servants, giving them derogations for health and safety, giving them derogations for environmental protection. They pay no inheritance tax. Charles inherited almost a billion pounds from his mother. He didn't pay a single penny in- How do you care? That is so unfair in a society.

Peter. Let me finish, let me finish. You talk about money. No, there's so unfair. To me, the financial benefit of the monarchy, they wash their face, to put it as a colloquial phrase, where they don't really cost us anything. It's estimated it might cost us one P a day.

That is not true. That is not true. They own the Crown Estate. They should not own the Crown Estate. They've owned it for a thousand years, Peter. That should belong to the British people. The Crown Estate, They give 85% of the profits of the Crown estate,

and they give an additional billion pounds a year on the offshore wind farms alone. You're talking nonsense financially. Because I'd really like to talk about the economy. Recent estimates are £345 million. That's how much the monarchy cost us. Now, yes, some of that is the sovereign grant, which is paid for by...

Hang on the sovereign grant. No, it's not actually. There's the sovereign grant, which absolutely, you're right. Which comes from their own estate. Sorry, can I just finish my point, Richard? Yes, the sovereign grant, does come from the estate, which are not personal property. They belong to the...

It's owned by the monarch. Would you just let me finish my point? However, that cost the sovereign grant, which is far smaller than the £345 million I've quoted, does not include the cost of... But Riz, here's my point again. Oh my God, let me finish my point. Riz, why do you care?

I just... I would really like it. If you don't agree with the monarchy or the royals, why don't you just find something more interesting to be angry about? Would you just let me finish? Go after cost of living crisis. whatever it may be. ...talking about Piz.

Local government security, those are all excess costs. The cost of the monarchy is far bigger than what it's quoted to me. And that is money that should be going back into the... Let me just respond to that. Let me just respond. We are having a conversation. It's not one-way traffic. Except we're not because we're letting me finish a single point.

I'm hosting a show with three guests. It's not just about you. It was revealed today that they reckon the 100,000 tourists coming to London, just London for this coronation, that all that they will do in the time they're here will bring. bringing 450 million pounds, along with all the extra hospitality for the capital alone. So look, my point, Peter, is this, is that I believe they wash their face financially, in which case the argument shouldn't be about the money part of it.

But you've made it about the money. You've said they're bringing all this money. But I believe... That reduces the monarchy, this is Robbie commercialism. I'm removing the money from the argument, because I think the bigger argument is whether we should have an unelected head of state. It's a more interesting debate to me than the semantics over the money, which I I think they actually pay for themselves.

On that one point, who would you have as president? That would be up for the British people. Give me an option. I think Baroness Helena Kennedy, QC, or Casey, would be a fine president. Really? A human rights lawyer who's done exceptional work to defend the rights of the British people. And no tourist around the world is going to come and see baroness that no one's ever heard of. You're talking absolute nonsense.

We're talking. So, to be clear, the tourism that happens. Billions of pounds of revenue to this great country. Completely incorrect. What's the proudest thing we have. What creates those profits is the royal estates. All right. No, no tour to seize the queen.

I cannot. No, I cannot go back to your notebook. We haven't got time. But it's been a good debate. Thank you. Come back in another time. This hasn't been a debate. You haven't let me finish a single point.

Actually, you've done more. Riz, you've done more talking than any of the other guests. You haven't let me finish. So the words you're looking for are thank you, Piz. This is a deluded argument. It's always good to see you. I'll look out for you on Saturday with your banner. I'll be commenting.

on this for Fox in America. And if I see you, I'll give you a shout out. There's my friend Peter with his, not in my name banner. Richard, always good to see you too. Chris, calm down, count to ten. There'll be another chance. Go back to Oxford. Count yourself lucky, about the privileged education you're getting. You're one of the most privileged young ladies in the country.

Almost right up there with Prince William. Still to come, he served the longest apprenticeship in history, but is King Charles the man to rescue and in battle monarchy? Andrew Morton, a ran off-wise. What a panel that is. We'll join me next. Welcome back to Piers Morgan Uncensive. We're less than 48 hours away from King Charles being officially proclaimed as our monarch, the first coronation of my lifetime at most people's lifetimes. New King and Queen be leading other senior royals and rehearsals for a global spectacle. It's been 70 years in the waiting. But is King Charles the monarch to meet a difficult moment for the monarchy? It's

Savantapole out delays, there's just 14% of Brits think you'll do a better job than his late mother. To be honest, I'm surprised it is even that high because she was a unparalleled monarch, the greatest of all time in my view. Well, Jordan has discussed this, the Royal Biographer Andrew Morton, and shortly speaking to the explorer and close friend of the king, Sir Ranalf Fires as well, Andrew, well, great to see you. Hi, I can't think of a better man to put all this into perspective. It's an incredible, it's like following Alex Ferguson at Manchester United or Sinatra at the

isn't it for poor Charles? He waited all this time. And of course, the longer his mother went on, the greater her reputation and legacy became until the point where she is now acknowledged as the greatest monarch in history. Yes, and indeed. And the twilight of her reign, I think it was the finest part of her in the speech. Speeching the COVID pandemic. We'll meet again speech. Still brings tears to my life now. And I think, and she showed a real sight to herself that she'd never shown before so so ironically when she passed she was at her popularity what was at zenith but quite frankly I mean we've we've seen we've all seen King Charles over the years and we've seen his development from a little boy the last coronation to to today so he's had enough training

well he's had the greatest apprenticeship in history yeah the big difference between the queen's coronation and this one is that when the Elizabeth was crowned in 1953, people talked about a new Elizabethan age. Yes. It was a step change and so on. This is just business as usual. It's people in their 70s getting married. I mean, you know, when Elizabeth became queen, Churchill was in tears

because he thought she couldn't cope with the job. Of course, King Charles can because he knows all the people, knows all the people in Europe, all the people in all the politicians in Britain. You, as we know, had a very close relationship with Princess. Diana, you wrote that extraordinary book. What would she have made of this, do you think? Because she said famously in the panorameter, I'm not sure he'd be up for the top job

or even wanted the top job. Well, you know, she said to me right from the start with one of the early interviews that she would never become queen, but she'd have a rough road and that she didn't think that he would ever become king. And what she wanted was to see Charles go off to Tuscany with what she called then his lady and leave her to look after

the shop as it were with Prince William and guide him to the throne so skip a generation so she's the one who started that debate off which has kind of resonated down through the decade how would she have felt if she was still alive at seeing Camilla get crowned queen well the 1997 version of dying before she passed would have been furious for the simple reason that you know know in her conversations with the Queen, the Queen said, oh, Charles will never marry Camilla. Of course, she got that wrong as well. So in those days, she would have been absolutely mortified.

But 25 years on, you would hope that she's found a new love, a new life, a new purpose in life. And some peace, perhaps. And I was intrigued looking at the guest list that Andrew Parker Bolt is going to be in the congregation. And I thought of myself, now, that's a shrewd. move that's that's an amicable divorce Diana I wonder if Diana would have been there she wouldn't have been there no she'd have been somewhere else she'd have been abroad presumably you know visiting a hospital Duke of Windsor he wasn't invited

yeah he went to Paris sat and and did a running commentary from the TV screen with in front of his friends I want to bring in Serrano finds we've now made contact with Serrano great to have you on here's Morgan uncensored thank you very much indeed for joining us I want to start with a clip of Prince, or King Charles now, of course, but he was Prince Charles when he said this about you. You wanted to do the things that haven't been done by other people. To achieve that others haven't. If you had too much imagination, you've never do these things, I don't think.

I'm asking if I'd be interested in helping. Rather nice to have people who are proper eccetrics. He had this absolute drive and determination. Well, Sir, Randolph, it doesn't get better than that. This is a man who's about to be crowned king of our country, bestowing you with these amazing tributes. How did that make you feel? Well, he was great.

I mean, I'll give you an instance. We used to go to High Grove to brief him in the 70s and 80s as to the next expedition, world-breaking attempt he would be patron of. But he wouldn't agree to be patron without us going to describe everything that's going on on that next expedition. And on one occasion at Highgrove, he said, yeah, that sounds a good idea, but who are we raising money for this time? And I said, well, sir, I'm afraid, you know, we never have raised money. And he said, well, I wouldn't have been your patron if I'd known that.

And I said, well, who do you want to raise money for? And he said, I'll let you know. And a couple of months later, he said, MS, multiple sclerosis. And to cut a long story short, now, all these years later, we're up to 19. 18.8 million for UK charities as a result of Prince Charles's one comment. Amazing. You know him well, much better than most people. What do you think of the biggest misunderstandings about him as a man? People really don't seem to know what a wonderful, honest, humble character he is.

And he's got a great sense of humour, a great sense of duty. But, you know, he's had a lot of people against him, anti-monarchy and so on. And he lives in a democracy. And he knows his place, as it were. And we've been very, very lucky having him. I can remember being told the Special Air Service who were in charge

of the first journey around Earth vertically that we were doing with Prince Charles as the patron. He came out to Australia to say hello. He got on the ship at Greenwich, where we set out, and he steered all the way down the Thames. He came to visit us

when we had a show of all our sponsors at Farnborough, inside Farnborough, and he with his equerry, who was scared stiff, was at the wheel. He, for good flight, it was a twin otter ski plane with wheels at the time. And as he landed on snow and ice at Farnborough at that time, he thought, oh, that is nice, and he did it three times. And his equerry was terrified. I mean, I've known him a bit.

And I actually know Camilla better, who I'm a big fan of. I think she's been an amazingly stoic rock in his life. It's very difficult. I was talking to Andrew Morton here about this. When you're following a monarch as great as his mother. And, of course, he had to take over whilst mourning the loss of his mother, coming quite soon after the death of his father. These are seismic changes in any man's life both personally and professionally.

Do you think he has the tools? I mean, you're one of the most resilient men in the country. Do you think he has the tools to... not just come through that, but to thrive and be the king that he's always wanted to be? I think so, but I'm no good at hypothesis into the future. What will go for and against, you know, we just do not know. But if anyone stands a very good chance of it with a good sense of humour and a good sense of humility, as I told you, and honest,

he will be the right, the best possible one that we could have. We had a young lady on earlier who was very exercised about the idea of a monarchy, wanted to get rid of the monarchy, have a republic. There is a Republican whiff in the air amongst many countries in the Commonwealth and a little bit of it here as well. When you justify our monarchy to people, if you get into that kind of debate with people,

what are the best selling points do you think of why we should continue to have one? Well, we are a democracy, and so if we vote for having a king rather than one of the many other alternatives, then, yeah, you're going to get, Lots of people against it, lots of people for it. Some of their reasons seem to be very reasonable.

But the bottom line is that we remain a democracy and we stand up for any other democracies like Zelensky's. And, you know, the monarchy normally, but not always, of course, is democratic. Yeah, and to those who say that the whole idea of an unelected head of state, unelected monarchy presiding over our democratic process, what's the best justification for a monarchy, do you think? I think it's the way we inherit things and always have in the UK. I don't know about France and anywhere else,

but in the UK, inheritance through a certain line is what we've been accustomed to, all these generations. Yeah, I think that's right. Andrew, let me bring you back in here. Yes, stability and continuity. Yeah, I mean, when you get asked, come on then, explain why Britain should have this ridiculous farce of unelected people living in palaces with service.

What's the best answer? Well, it is a constitutional monarchy. That's what Churchill always used to think. It was a constitutional monarchy. It wasn't a tyranny. It wasn't a rule by one man. And it's kind of like explaining the game of cricket to an American. They don't...

It's one of those things. that it's just evolved over the years and it can do with some reforming. I mean I notice now that King Charles is reforming the way that they have their palaces and houses. And there's all, you know, there's a lot that can be done but at the same time do you live by the premise that this is the best that we've got for our country? And I think the answer is yes. You recently starred in series five of the Crown, or rather you were played by an actor. Andrew Steele. More than you.

I've got one upon you. We have a clip. We have a clip. I wasn't in the crowd yet. It's still time. Let's take a look at this. As a royal correspondent, I've had a ringside seat to this marriage for a while. Most recently, her second honeymoon.

And I can't stand to see someone being crushed like this. I think she is being? I do. Take this book that's being written. With the Prince of Wales his cooperation. Maybe not him direct, but his friends for sure. Who want what they see is the truth about the hamlet to be told. Trust me, it won't be pretty.

I just want to do what's right for her. She's like a sister to me. Can I give you my word? No one will ever know she had anything to do with it. I mean, a bit too much hair, I think, to be inaccurate. I have to say, if she'd have lived, I would still be saying today, she had nothing to do with the book, because she was, as you were, the deep throat.

Listen, Diana once gave me a 90-minute interview on the phone when I was edited to the mirror about her eating disorders after visiting a clinic, and then the next morning, she had a statement to press association expressing her fury at these intrusive revelations, which had all come from her.

So she was a mercurial character. Where will you be on the big day? I'll be outside Westminster Abbey. Yeah, okay. And I'm looking forward to it. And a quick word about Prince Harry? What reception do you think he's going to get? What does he deserve?

Well, he deserves. It's a state occasion, not a family occasion, and he deserves up the hard bench, presumably sitting at the back of the... What would Diana have made of what he's been doing? Well, I mean, Diana did her own biography with me, so she would have been perfectly content, especially as Harry gave Camilla a good kicking.

Yeah, it's probably true. And remember, a lot of, you know, Harry speaks, communes with his mother and doesn't make any decisions without referring to her. Right. Sir, Ranav, where will you be on the big day on Saturday? I'm absolutely miserable. A long time ago when there was no coronation date fixed, I got fixed up for giving lectures in various parts of the north, Scarborough and around that area.

And the contract, you know, can't be undone. So I'm hoping that our patron Prince Charles will understand. Well, King Charles, as he now is. Yeah, but we've been used to him being Prince Charles for all these years. Well, we're used to you being Sir Ranoff, but it can't be long before you're promoted to Lord Fines, can it? It can, because I didn't get a Sir anyway. It was my dad, and he got it from his granddad. And so I don't like using it very often because I didn't earn it.

Do you understand what I mean? I do. do earn it because you're a great national treasure. So whether you think you earned it or not, I think you do. And it's great to have you to run off on the program. Thank you very much. No, thank you for asking me and making about a wonderful man, Prince Charles. King Charles. I'm sorry, King Charles. Great to see you. And Andrew, thank you very much indeed. Really appreciate you coming in. Thank you. And the big day, of course, is Man City Leeds. Well, that's not all football.

Don't intrude into private grief. Arsenal fans are... I can't go there. Too painful. Still to come. We're often told the world is overpopulated and the planet will simply explode with human beings. But others don't agree with that.

A new Silicon Valley movement says the opposite is true and we have to have more children to save mankind. Elon Musk thinks this is a massive crisis that is about to unfurl. We'll talk to a couple after break who are breeding like the proverbial rabbits because they believe this. Welcome back to Piers,

The UN says there will be 11 billion humans by the year 2100, sparking warnings overpopulation with famine, disease, conflict and even complete societal collapse. On the polar opposite side of that debate, though, are the pro-natalists, elite Silicon Valley couples who say birth rates are going to fall and we should all breed more to save humanity. Elon Musk is their most famous advocate and he's one of the smartest guys in the world. The world's richest man and one of the cleverest has 10 of his own kids and claims population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk of civilisation than global warming. Meanwhile, down the road in Montecito, that world-renowned expert on everything, Prince Harry,

told Vogue in 2019 that he cap a number of kids he's planning with Megan to help save the world to to maximum, he said. He said, I've always thought this place is borrowed and surely being as intelligent as we all are, at which point I'm afraid he lost me. So anyway, let's move on from Harry's quotes, because once he says that, he loses the argument. One couple at the centre of the pro-natalist movement and the backlash to it are Simone and Malcolm Collins from Pennsylvania currently have three children

plan to expand their family to seven and they join me now from Philadelphia well welcome to both of you so Simone let me start with you if I may because you're doing the physical side of this intensive reading but it's very interesting because I've listened to Elon Musk about this and he is absolutely adamant

this is the biggest threat actually along with artificial intelligence to mankind is the reverse of what most people think. It's actually a case of the population levels tumbling to a level which is going to endanger the planet. Explain to people who think that's ridiculous, why that is a real situation. Yes, as soon as societies basically reach a level of modernity,

where there is prosperity, gender equality, high levels of education, populations start to drop below replacement rate. That's a pretty serious problem. If it seems like, modernity and all the things that we consider to be good, like women's rights, like prosperity, like good quality of life, seem incompatible with flourishing humans. It seems wild to me that we live in a world today where not a single country or culture except for maybe Israel has found

out how to maintain a stable population alongside prosperity, gender equality, and education. This as like a civilization is probably something we should start talking about. Once I heard I was having you guys on as guests, I did read a lot of about this. And it seems to be that the graph, the graph continues to rise population until around the middle of a century, but then it could, it could start to fall precipitously after that. Yes, if you look at fertility rates today, the only countries that really have above repopulation fertility rates are where the average salary is under 4,000 pounds a year or 5,000 USD a year. So you're really only seeing high fertility rates in desperately poor countries right now. If you look at the

developed world, the average fertility rate is only around 1.5, and we need 2.1 just to keep stable populations. Okay. And Simone, I know that you're planning to have seven children, I think. You've got three under your belt, literally. How fast do you want to have the seven? What's the, is the clock ticking here? Absolutely. Yeah, we need to have them basically as quickly spaced as possible. So we're going in for our next, our next round, essentially, next month. And we're going to have more than seven if we can, basically, until my uterus is forcibly removed in a botched surgery, I'm going to keep going. I mean, we laugh about it, but there's a very serious point to this. And it's fascinating because the more I've dug into it, after actually Elon Musk said what he said, the more interesting it becomes.

And look, it is an argument which is argued vehemently both ways. You know, there are a lot of people who believe the complete opposite, but there are a lot of smart people who think this is a real doomsday thing coming around the corner. Yeah, I mean, I think we need to look at how quickly fertility rates can collapse. When I started caring about this, I was working as a venture capital in Korean. I had to constantly plan out the future of their economy. At South Korea's current fertility rate, for every hundred South Koreans, there will be six great-grandchildren. We're looking at a 94% population collapse. Coming back to places like the U.S. and the U.K., it felt like traveling two decades back in time,

like I was in some sort of a sci-fi world, and I got a chance to try to raise the flag before it was too late. Because when you hit a place like Korea, where now 60% of the population is above the age of 40, it's probably too late for them to turn the situation around. And then there's all these economic problems. You can say, well, we can solve this with immigration, but then what you're doing is you're making the developed world reliant, their economies reliant on keeping Africa poor, the African countries poor, that have these high fertility rates. And that's not a good place to put the world in. And then you talk to the U.S. about this and they go, oh, we can solve this with immigration.

But as of 2019, by the UN's own statistics, collectively, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean fell below every population rate. So I think people are just, they're not aware of how far this problem has progressed. It's really just a few countries in the world today. Yeah, and the numbers are pretty startling, actually.

I mean, Simone, the answer clearly is we had to go back to massive gender inequality, right? No, I mean, the whole reason why we're advocates, in this entire space is we really want a future in which there is gender equality. And if we don't take measures now, the future is one with massive gender inequality. Basically, the future of feminism requires on more feminist people having kids and raising them in a durable culture that is feminist. And this is what was so funny.

I'm sorry, I've run out of time. I'm actually going to get you guys back another time because this is a really interesting debate. Honestly, I find this really intriguing. and your great guest. So thank you very much for joining me now. And we're going to do a bigger debate on Ms. Dan Malign after our coronations out the way. But thank you, Simona Malcolm.

I appreciate you joining me. Thank you very much. Thank you. We're excited to. We need the royals to keep breeding and we don't have a monarchy. So at the very least, they've got to keep going. Unscensored next.

I'll debate all this with my panel. Look at this panel, waiting expectantly. Back to the kitchen. So you two, then. We'll debate that after a break. And Catherine Jenkins will perform again. A wonderful national... Go back to Peers Ballinacensa.

I'm going to talk to the international editor, Isabel Oakshot, and talk to your contributor, Paula Rohn. Okay, what do we make of this? Paula, it's an interesting debate, right? I mean, are we all getting this completely wrong? Is it actually that we're going to be underpopulated? So, no, is a short answer to that question. I appreciate...

How do you know? Because I also can read, Piers, like you, and I also did my research, like you. And what we are not doing by listening to the Collins is, as wonderful and romantic as they sound, what we're not doing is taking into account the other factors that need to be taken into account to live on this planet.

Like what? Like climate change, like the fact that we are going to see the mass migration of people due to climate change. What's going to happen when the droughts hit? What's going to happen when there's no more fish in the sea, etc? But how is that going to affect the reality? of prosperous countries heading towards massive underpopulation.

That's a separate argument. I think you are actually touching on something much more sensitive there, which is that essentially the population is rising and going to continue rising quite steadily up for the next, about the next 80 years, something like that. And then it's going to slightly fall back. That's not what Elon Musk says. I think what they're really saying

is that the population isn't rising among the right sort of people. And I also think very, very... very, very rarely for you, you slightly missed a trick with your interview with them because you didn't bring up the impact of the whole trans thing and all these people who are now voluntarily kind of giving up their reproductive system. Well, that does bring me neatly actually to the University of the Art in London has been criticised for removing the word woman from its maternity leave and menopause information. It will now apply to all genders.

They prefer to use individual person, and people because they want to be inclusive, Isabel. I mean, you can only go through the menopause if you've got female reproductive parts. Apparently not. Well, no, that is just a fact. I mean, a trans man could go through the menopause, but how many of those will there be in that?

Because a trans man is a biological female. Exactly. So they may go through the menopause. But are you going to alter... Here's my point about this. Your entire language around... All right, Paul, why... Why does all language for women and women's health issues have to be irrevocably changed at the altar of trans activism?

Sorry, a tiny percentage of trans people will have any involvement with any of this. 99% of women want to be called women. They want to be called mothers. They want to be told they're having a menopause. Women, what's happening to the country when the word woman is now being erased? So I think the issue,

is it's about gender neutrality, isn't it? It's about finding terminology that will be able to include everybody. I think they need to do that. I think it's a classic... But why in our haste to not offend the trans community? Are we deliberately offending 99% of women? Where are their rights to be called women? Seriously.

I mean, everyone's very excitable. And for us to have... I find this whole issue utterly enraging, and I'm not even a woman. We need to be calm for us to have this debate. I don't think we need to be calm. No, because the one screaming loudest, are affecting all the change.

They're bullying everybody into going along with this total insanity. I want the word woman to be saved. I like women. I like you women. But I don't understand why every woman isn't storming the ramparts. Why is it called the menopause?

Are they now going to say, it has to be called the themopause? Yes, yes. I mean, you know, perhaps. But if I can answer your question, when we look at gender neutrality, it is about trying to find words that are inclusive. And I get that.

Why do you have to? Why do you have to? Well, because chairman is not an inclusive term. You could have a chair. Who was ever... All right. What about manhole? What about manhole?

What about manhole? Does that have to go? What about dustman? Does that have to go? No, no. Is that an appropriate... Is that an appropriate term? A manhole?

Doesn't it... Is that offensive? It doesn't need to be a person... Why are you being holist? Does it need to be a gendered wholeist? I don't think it does. And that's the point about gender neutrality. Paula, even you don't believe this.

And you virtue single... Can I say... Can I say... We can tell she's talking absolute nonsense. She doesn't believe it. I don't believe she believes. I've got to leave you because we've got Catherine Jenkins, a bona fide woman waiting to sing.

I bow to thee, my country. That's it from me. I'll be back tomorrow night with a Friday special about the coronation. Keep it uncensored.