Piers Morgan Uncensored - “VINDICATED!” Prince Harry LOSES Court Case Against Media | Accused Journalist Speaks OUT

Episode Date: July 7, 2026

Prince Harry has returned to the UK for a highly anticipated visit, but the trip has quickly become overshadowed by fresh controversy. Just hours after his arrival, the High Court in London ruled against the Duke of Sussex in a major privacy case involving the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, marking a significant legal defeat. The visit had initially sparked speculation about a possible family reconciliation, with reports suggesting Harry, Meghan Markle, and their children could reunite with King Charles and other senior royals. Instead, attention has shifted to the Duke's renewed calls for taxpayer-funded security despite no longer serving as a working royal. According to reports, the Royal Family offered Harry and his family accommodation at Buckingham Palace during their stay, an offer he reportedly did not accept. At the same time, renewed debate has emerged over the security arrangements surrounding his UK visits after details of the threats he says he faces were highlighted in media coverage. With a high-profile court loss, ongoing tensions over security, and continued questions about his relationship with the Royal Family, Harry's latest return to Britain has once again placed the Duke of Sussex at the centre of headlines. Piers Morgan is joined co-host of The Royals Uncensored Katie Nicholl, who was one of the main journalists accused by Harry, author and journalist Tom Bower, host of Kinsey Schofield Unfiltered, Kinsey Schofield, lawyer and commentator, Paula Rhone-Adrien to discuss. 00:00 Introduction 02:28 Piers is joined by his panel to discuss Prince Harry’s arrival to the UK 03:45 Katie Nicholl on her journalism being the epicentre of Harry’s legal case 11:30 Prince Harry’s legal proceedings against the Daily Mail 16:15 Accommodation and security for Prince Harry in the UK 20:30 Racism allegations against King Charles and Princess Catherine 21:55 Financial losses for the Sussexes following High Court loss 24:00 The Sussexes posting their children online 30:45 The comparison between Harry and Andrew 33:40 What will happen during Harry’s visit? 40:12 The Sussexes conducting Royal tours without being working Royals 42:02 William and Catherine doing their own thing Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This spring, denim gets a softer, lighter update. Introducing Old Navy's drapey denim wide leg, a new fit that moves with you. It's everything you want denim to feel like for summer. Easy, breathable, and effortlessly cool. With a fit that creates natural movement and a wide leg that feels modern, not overwhelming. Plus, that signature, wait, for this price, moment. Old Navy's drapey denim wide leg. I did journalism the hard way, right?

I went out. I went out every night. I partied. I partied with Prince Harry. I never witnessed anything in terms of what we were accused of doing and the accusations were despicable. I feel vindicated. Prince Andrew was receiving state-funded security even though he was a global prior. King Charles couldn't put his hand in his pocket and say to his son, I've got you covered. He wants to be taken as a serious person and this loss jeopardizes his credibility. It jeopardizes his authority. his authority and I think it jeopardizes his future when it comes to making money. He and Megynal, in my view, have reached the end of a chapter.

They're now into a serious problem of survival. Is this marriage going to survive? Well, the gigantic ego has landed. Prince Harry's officially back in the UK for a much vaunted visit, which has now inevitably become another soap opera. And as it happens, he couldn't have timed it better if he was acting out of script written by his worst enemies. Shortly before we came on air, the High Court in London announced that Harry has lost a gigantic privacy case against a daily mail on the mail on Sunday.

A good day for them, a good day for journalism, a great day for press freedom and a very bad day for ginger whining, treacherous little weasels. More on that in a moment. The retired Duke of Sussex was, of course, supposed to be travelling with the exiled Duchess and their children. There was excitable talk of settling family feuds in a rare meeting between the king and his grandchildren. Instead, Harry has usually publicity about the trip to do what he does best, grandstand about perceived grievances. He once again demanded taxpayer-funded security protection despite not being a working royal. Once again, he was told the answer, quite rightly, is no. The royal was offered Harry and his family, use of Buckingham Palace for the duration of their stay.

It's self-evidently one of the most secure buildings in the United Kingdom, after all. But apparently the palace is not fit for the spared of the throne. Harry didn't respond to the offer. Instead, he leaked his self-funded report about the colossal, terror threat he faces to ITV news and told the rest of his family to stay away. That terror threat apparently only applied to London and it was clear that if they were in Birmingham, for example, which is two hours drive away, it wouldn't apply. Maybe you can let the terrorists know that they're geographic based.

I'm not sure they got that memo. But after this afternoon's news, he's probably wishing he stayed away himself. Well, joining me now in the studio is Katie Nicol, co-host of the Royal's Unsensored, author and journalist Tom Bauer, Kinsee Schofield, host of Kinsey Schofield, and the law and commentator, Paula Rohn agent. Well, I'm going to start with you, Katie, because you were right at the centre of this case. They had 17 of your articles cited by the claimants,

questioning the veracity of your stories, the way you had got them, the legitimacy of your journalism. Everything about you was trashed in that courtroom. This is what the judge said about you when he ruled completely in favour of the Daily Mail and on Sunday. I found Miss Nicol to be a credible and impressive witness. I accept

her evidence as honest. Her frank acceptance of the limits of her regulation did not undermine that assessment. That is a ringing endorsement of you, your character, your journalism, everything, actually, complete slam dunk. But I know, because I brought you into host

Royals uncensored, I know the toll list has taken on you and how difficult it's been for you to have to wait for this sort of Sword of Damocles moment, which could dictate how you are viewed for the rest of your career. Yeah. How are you feeling on this moment? I'm not going to lie, but emotional, because this has been, you know, quite a few years of my life.

And the many other journalists that have gone through this. And I have worked on Fleet Street now for 20 years. I've been at Vanity Fair for 15 of those. I was at The Mail on Sunday for 17 of those years. And they were wonderful years of journalism. And, you know, I did journalism the hard way, right? I went out. I went out every night.

I partied. I partied with Prince Harry. That story came out in the court when, you know, he couldn't remember. But he invited me into the party, into his inner circle. I did things the old-fashioned way. When a knocked on doors, curated contacts, got people on side. I remember being told when I was under questioning, but, you know, the Queen's late cousin, Lady Elizabeth Anson,

you know, at the time was a woman in her 70s, why on earth would she speak to you, this sort of sense of disbelief that these sorts of people would speak to us? Well, they did. And in all of those years I spent at the mail on Sunday, I never witnessed anything in terms of what we were accused of doing. And the accusations were despicable.

So I feel emotional. I feel, um, vindicated, peers, is how I feel. Well, you've been completely vindicated, as has the mail, completely. I mean, you know, I was telling somebody earlier on group chat that were talking about it. I said, Diana used to call me regularly. I used to go around for lunch at Kensington Palace. She'd call me.

I'd tape the calls, and she knew I was taping her. I'd send her the copy of the story I was going to run. She would send it back with little amendments. I've got all this, right? So this idea that Prince Harry seems to want the public to buy into that every story about him and his family has been gained illegally by terrible journalists, you know, it's just not true. Well, it's been knocked out.

Every single article was legitimately sourced is Justice Nicklin's findings. And, you know, Paul Dake has gone on to give a really passionate and emotional... Well, he was editor-in-chief, obviously, at the time of most of this. in his statement, it's worth recounting in full. Prince Harry wrote a sad book which boasted about his killing of 25 Taliban, his drug-taking and in cringe-making detail how he lost his virginity. There isn't a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen

he's aired about his own family. For him to complain about his privacy being evaded takes not just the biscuit, but the whole tin. Poor Harry, I feel sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case. The bitter irony is that his mother liked the male. We were her paper. We took her side and her acrimanious break up with Charles. She and I would speak and me.

The male's superb royal reporter, Richard Kay, was her friend and confidant. The truth is that this trumped-up action, which has cost well over £50 million and wasted a huge amount of valuable court time, should never have been brought to trial. That it did raise these profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of illegal profession. Today's verdict is not just a victory for Associated's magnificent journalist, several of whom have had a terrible toll imposed on their health and lies, but a free press generally. Make no mistake, this was a conspiracy supported by Hacked Off,

an organisation, has been well reported, as he puts it to destroy a paper, financed by the orgy-loving racist Max Mosley and involving the actor Hugh Grant. It was also a sinister attempt to resuscitate Leveson 2 and impose statutory regulation on the press, which even now is rearing its ugly head in Labour's media green paper. I mean, very strong word support.

I saw him actually at a party several weeks ago. I said, I think you're going to win this case because I saw nothing in the trial which said to me that they have proven their case. Now, to be clear, the judge makes it clear he isn't accusing any of the witnesses of lying or trying to mislead the court or anything. He just does not believe that on any of the cases

they looked at, any of the stories, that they proved their case. Well, there was no evidence, and that was the problem. Now, don't forget, we were being, quizzed, you know, forensically, about stories that were written some 20, 23 years ago. I can barely remember what I said 24 hours ago. You know, we all have busy lives. You know, no one's saying we can recollect absolutely everything that was said and done. You know, I said this when I was giving evidence. I would have remembered intercepting someone's

voicemail. I would have remembered hacking someone's phone. I never did any of those things. I never witnessed any of those things at the mail. And so it is a great day because they are great journalists. And it's been very upsetting for me to see so many of my esteemed colleagues, amazing people that have devoted their lives to their careers at great personal costs, have their reputations tarnished the way that they have been. And also, you know, Paul touched on people suffering health issues as well. You've talked very openly and bravely about, you know, you had cancer very seriously. It nearly killed you. Yeah. Right. You've had all that to deal with as well. Yeah. Well, this case happened. This case came to light.

literally weeks after my surgery, when I couldn't even walk to the top of the stairs. And yet I was having to get old notebooks out. And thank goodness I kept all my notebooks and had so many records because they showed that I was acting legitimately and carrying out proper journalistic practices. But no, it's been, is being horrendous?

And it's had an impact on my life. But I gave evidence because I wasn't going to have these accusations leveled at me anymore. I was fed up with it. My name was first dragged through the mud at Leverson by Hugh. you, Grant, I wasn't going to have it again. You know, it's interesting what Paul Dacre said there about Harry just being a rank hypocrite

because nobody has invaded the privacy of the royal family like he has. The stuff he came out with in the book, I mean, it was jaw-dropping. And, you know, I don't want to be a hypocrite and say in my editor's career, we didn't reveal stories about the world. Of course we did. Tom has written books about the world.

Of course, that's our stock and trade. Sometimes, let's be honest, sometimes personal stories. Did we sometimes go too personal? Yeah, I put my hands up to that. But there's a difference between crossing the line and invading someone's privacy and something that's illegal. Yeah, and the point I would make is on hypocrisy, that Harry has made a fortune,

gazillions of pounds, trashing his family and revealing the most extraordinarily intimate secrets. Invading everyone else's privacy. So this is the great royal privacy invader, trying to put up this fake sword of the shining knights, you know, taking on the journalist for doing exactly what he does all the time and makes vast amounts of money out of it.

I mean, it's just the most breathtaking hypocrisy. And it felt very personal at times. The attacks felt very personal. What do you feel about him today? You're going to hate me for saying this, but I, you know, there is a bit of me that just... I do feel a bit sorry for him because I think he has been so misguided in all of this.

At the end of the day, the only winners here have been the lawyers. Prince Harris, the loser in every respect. But we're the winners too. You're the winners, actually. And I don't feel sorry from at all. Me, bringing in the other palace. Tom, this is an absolute, I mean, as wins go in the annals of Fleet Street history, this is, I think, the biggest I've seen,

where you've got not just Prince Harry, you've got Elton John, you've got Liz Hurley, you've got all these people. I mean, the only one I actually feel sorry for in all this, a little bit is Doreen Lawrence, because I think she just got introduced into going along with this nonsense, and actually the male had done an enormous amount to campaign

for her to get justice for what happened to her son Stephen. So I'd park her to one side in this, but these very, very rich celebrities thought they could just trot into court and take down the mail. Well, I think you've got to look two things. I mean, the judge

has been remarkably brave, because to punch Harry on the nose so violent, and although he hasn't called him a liar, implies that he didn't believe a word of his evidence, was brave in the normal race of things. But you got to remember how it all started. It all starts with the hacked-off people and Sherbourne, the lawyer, coming to Harry with a statement by a so-called private detective that he had burgled his way into all the claimant's homes, laid wire traps and all the rest of it.

And that statement was proven by the mail to be completely. Which was a crucial moment in the defence. And at that moment, any Robert Marshall lawyer would have said, we're going to stop the case because we've been lied to by this eyewitness. But they went on. And they went on because they really did believe, led by their absolute passionate determination to destroy the mail, that if they could prove just one of 50 stories was legitimately obtained,

they would win. And that's what they even said last night. Well, you know, I'm going to be direct about this. When he took on the Daily Mirror, right, they found one story in my entire 10-year tenure, which they thought may on the balance of probability possibly have been gained from unlawful means. Now, I knew the journalist very well there. Absolutely no chance that journalist would have ever done that. But because that one story in my entire tenure, they thought may or may not, you know,

they're sort of hovering on the thing. I then was the lead story in the news, right? And people were led to believe I was part of this sort of illegal machinery at the mirror. It was complete nonsense. I never got called to that case by either side. I wish the mirror had fought this with the ferocity that the mail did. The mail just went, we're not having this. And so I think this has been a vengeful campaign by Harry against all of Fleet Street,

wanting to settle schools with all them. Obviously, News UK, they settled with him. But I just think at the heart of this, you've got the most breathtaking hypocrite, right? Just wanting to get public sympathy against newspapers by alleging that they have done what he does with impunity now for vast sums. I can just say one thing. You're right up to a point because, after all, there were a few people convicted for hacking. And the news of the world did close down because of hacking. Sure, and it was completely unacceptable.

But even on that, even on that story, they should. shut it down and it turned out the Guardian story was half wrong. Well, I agree. But let's just, what we're really faced today is that the royal family has got a rogue, a prince, fifth in line of succession, who has lost his case, damaged the Royal Family enormously over the last five years, and now is a moment, actually, of reflection, how are we going to rebuild the Royal Family? What are we going to do with this couple who are determined to only make any money by damaging this Royal Family?

Well, let's bring in the great Harry Defender. Paula, lovely to see you back. We must get you back when you're not trying to defend the indefensible about Harris. Thank you. But love me to see it. Look, against all this, we've got the backdrop of this utter farce once again of him coming to the UK, big fanfare, big announcements, going to bring his wife and kids, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Then the same old security row, they say, look, if it's not a working royal, you don't get all the bells and whistles of security. He starts citing terror threats and so on.

But none of it makes any sense, because apparently only applies to London, not other areas, which of course is nonsensical. Plus, as Paul Daker says, if you're going to be boasting in your book about how many Taliban you've killed, then you're probably going to piss off people on the Taliban side. So a lot of this is brought on himself, right? But putting that to one side, he basically held the king, Charles, his father, to yet more PR ransom. He plays this drama out in the court of social media, public opinion, leaks to people, magazine and so on. And he just constantly causes problems for Charles.

Charles offered him accommodation at Buckingham Palace. He didn't have to, but he did. And then Harry refuses to say, if he wants it or not, until the end of the week, they've got staff rotors, they've got security people, they've got a whole thing they have to put on, right? And so by the time he eventually says, yes, it's too late. He probably knew that. He's just doing it to get public opinion. Pears, come on. There are 240 bedrooms. Not at the moment. It's been renovated.

Yeah, it is a construction site. There are lots of bedrooms that King Charles could have offered. So why doesn't mean to say yes? There are lots of bedrooms. He did say yes. Immediately. No, he originally said no. He originally said no. Then he came back and said yes. Correct. Let me answer. The offer was put on the table.

It didn't have to be withdrawn. I think that says a lot really about the institution. You're offering your child somewhere to come and stay. Why would you need to then withdraw that offer? Maybe because your child has been behaving like a child. Maybe because your child has been behaving like a spoiled little brat toddler who wants his royal cake and eat it yet again. I mean, I don't know, having 240 bedrooms at your fingertips, you may well be spoiled.

But the point is, if you are dad and you, are making an offer to your child, why are you withdrawing it? There is no reason for you to withdraw it. If your son wants to reject the offer, then by all means, allow them to reject the offer. Then he accepted it. If he then turns around and says, Dad, I've changed my mind, please, can I come? Of course you can, son. No problem whatsoever. And then let's just talk about the fact that what we're seeing here is essentially an eviction of the heart. Because as far as, as As I'm concerned, King Charles, who doesn't even give a jot about Buckingham Palace, has told us that he doesn't care about Buckingham Palace and isn't going to stay there.

Why withdraw that offer? Just let him stay there. Just let his grandchildren, who he has never seen. Let them come and let them stay there. But he's not reading the grandchildren. Let's talk about the security. Let's talk about the security element. We know that, for example, Prince Andrew was receiving state-funded security for many years,

even though he was a global pariah. We know that even after state-funded security was removed, King Charles thought it was appropriate to pay the $3 million annual fee to protect Prince Andrew, even though, of course, throughout that time, he was not a working royal. And you're telling me that King Charles couldn't put his hand in his pocket. I don't care what the home office says.

King Charles couldn't put his hand in his pocket and say to his son, I've got you covered, I've got my beautiful grandchildren covered for whilst you're here. Kinsey? He does have some level of government protection when he's here. What he's pitching a fit about is he wants armed guards shadowing him every time he lands all the time. I mean, I do think that there are some people that misinterpret this

and are under the impression that he receives no support when he's here. He does receive some support when he's here from the government. He doesn't get the full armed protection. He wants it, though, because he wants to make it in a royal tour. Of course. He wants to monetise his presence here. Of course. And the palace, quite rightly, said, on the day of the Daily Mail judgment,

when you're going to be called unreliable, you're not going to then walk back into Buckingham Palace and besmirch the royal family more. He wasn't called unreliable by the judge. And why are you denying him the opportunity to earn money? I would have thought that you would want to applaud the fact that he is doing what he needs to do to feed his family and to ensure that he doesn't have to rely.

It doesn't have to rely, like Prince Andrew did, like Andrew Mountbatten Windsor did, forgive me, like he did when he was relying on the king. And the king seemed quite willing, and the queen was quite willing to allow him. Well, because quite simply, the way that Harry earns his money is by trashing the royal family and trashing Britain

and encouraging his wife to. So I don't actually have any sympathy for his way of earning money. Why does he just earn money without damaging Britain, which is done dramatically and wholly? And I just don't find any... Are you suggesting emotionally or financially that Prince Harry and Megan Sussex have damaged Britain? Oh my God, they called the Royal Family a bunch of call call racist. You know who they called racist?

We know this from the leak of that book by their oily little PR man. We know, because we revealed it on this show, that they were talking about King Charles, Prince Charles, as he was at the time, and Kate, right? The Princess of Wales. That's who they called racist. And then they pretended we didn't call them racist. We watched Oprah Winfrey. I had to lose my job over saying what bullshit it was. That's very true.

It's true. So I remember it very clearly. The Netflix series. And it turns out they were accusing Charles and Catherine of being racist. Just be clear. And then Harry had that disingenuous interview with Tom Bradby at ITN. We never said anyone was racist. That was a media invention.

What bullshit. Honestly, it's pure bullshit. From the moment they did the Oprah thing, They've been on this unstoppable attack against our royal family, the institution, all of it. But that's come to an end today, Piers. I think that's what's so fascinating. Yeah, I agree. He went into this case, convinced he was going to win.

He believed it until the end. He makes the advice of his father, by the way. Of course. I think it's just worth pointing that out. The king did not want him to go ahead and take the newspaper to watch. And today he's hit the buffers. And he couldn't have done this, Kinsey, in the United States, where you're from, right? The First Amendment would have protected the papers.

The bonkers. He says the First Amendment is bonkers, by the way. Of course, because he wouldn't be able to assume papers like he does here, right, with the impunity that he's done it. What's the fate now of Harry and Megyn, do you think, peers? It's going to be very interesting because he, I mean, this will hit him financially, right? We already know they're obviously struggling a bit for cash. They spend a lot of money. All this forever stuff she's done, really not of it's really working. There's pots and jam all over.

How do you know they're struggling for cash? From what I read. We had two years where we're being told about how they were going to fail in their contract. How much of her jam have you bought? No. Do you know what? I haven't bought any of her jam. Exactly.

I know as anybody else. I can tell you what. What was anybody else? Them feeding their children is not relying on me buying their jam. I'm sure she's doing very well. The point I'm making is we make these sweeping statements about them, about their finances, about their work. For two years, I've been reading about.

how Netflix have been just so upset and unhappy and wish they could have got out of their contract. And then of course we see, and then of course we see... Where's Meet Me at the Lake? And then of course we saw the wonderful pictures of Megan. Pictures are pictures. Where are they never execute? Where's meeting at the lake?

Where is the other? Paula, Paula, Paula. You're a family lawyer, right? And a very good one. Thank you. Do you see an issue? Even you for your guilty, guilt-edged, rose-tinted spectacles about these two. When they lecture the world, as they did in a speech, about the need to protect children online,

and then a day later, post photographs of their young children onto Instagram. Do you see a problem? Can you see the children's faces in those photographs? Actually, they're getting more and more where you can, yeah. But do you see a problem? My question was... Do you see a problem in using your children to promote yourself? day after you lecture the world about protecting your kids online?

You can't see their faces. Or when you write an article about you can't see their faces. But even if you can't see their faces, so what? You can't see their faces. A, you could see more and more of them. She's edging more and more. But can I say, in terms of protecting our children online and to answer your question, to be fair to you, to answer your question, are you saying that you should not post your children online at all? They are.

Or are you saying that actually the corporate entities that control social media should take steps to ensure that children who are posted online are protected? I think if you're going to be centre stage in giving public speeches, lecturing the world about the importance of protecting kids online, and then you go out. And you should hide your children until that happens. Absolutely. Don't be a flaming hypocrite.

My problem with these two has always been the hypocrisy. Everybody who put their children online, putting their children in danger. Are you saying that everybody is? I think if you genuinely want to protect kids online, don't put your young kids on Instagram. It's that the hypocrisy goes beyond that within the last 24 hours.

Harry photographed with his little photography buddy, weeks after writing the anti-Semitism in the UK article, then he's pictured next to this man who's had to resign from his charity because of accusations of anti-Semitism. The hypocrisy is the only thing that is consistent about these two. Otherwise, they are not consistent.

They do not execute. They announce things, you know, we talked about Netflix. Where's Meet Me at the Lake? Where are all of these projects that they announced? The reason we feel like they are in desperate need of money is because Megan was coming back here after she made such a stink saying that this place hated her,

she hated them, and it was racist. That was an admission of defeat. That was an admission of I have gotten. Do you reckon we'll see them this week? I don't think Megan was. I'll tell you what my money would be on. A trip to Allthrop.

I think that's a good bet. To Diana's burial plot, I reckon it'll be the full-on, you know, self-filmed. Will she appear with him? It'll be the most cynical thing you've ever seen. Will she appear with him in Birmingham? That's the first thing.

How much money if you made from your books on the Royal Family? Oh, very little. In fact, I have to pay to get them published. My point is... Well, what's the point? He's an author? My point is, if you cannot go out like Prince Harry has done, like Meghan has done,

earn money, make your Netflix show. Let them make their Netflix show. Let them make that. I don't think anyone has a problem. I think people had a problem with how they left the royal family. I don't think anyone has a problem with them now being financially free from it and making money. I certainly don't go and make as many Netflix documentaries as you want. What I have a problem with is coming over here and trying to dovetail,

essentially, a family holiday with public work. It doesn't work. had they brought the kids over here on a private trip without telling anyone, Charles would have laid out the red carpet, he'd have opened up Buckingham Palace and the gardens, they could have helicoptered in, and no one would have been any the wiser. That would have been the sensible things to you. And by the way, they'd have had the security.

Harry has issued a statement as you're talking. Okay, well, let's hear it. It's a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected. Another establishment stitch up there. We came to court seeking justice and accountability, but we've received neither. of the most predictable statement in history. So another establishment...

In other words, because the judge didn't find for him, it's all a whitewash. The British establishment, trying to stiff him again. I mean, I have to say, I don't agree with him. The reality is, in terms of this case, what has, and who has won, is time. The calendar one, not the truth as far as Harry, Baroness Lawrence, Elton John. That's what's happened here, okay?

In terms of the statute of limitations, Their time frame Their time frame expired Their time frame expired for Harry. No, he didn't. That's not true at all. And what the judge said was, and what the judge said was in terms of the evidence,

they simply wasn't. I think he used the word anchorage. There wasn't the evidence that the judge could anchor to the allegations. That's not true. But he was lying. So suspicion, suspicion wasn't enough. You can say that.

You can say that. I did. And Katie's right. Suspicion wasn't in. Enough. Okay, so it wasn't about, as you said peers at the beginning, that this person was lying or that person was lying. What happens was there simply wasn't the evidence there to support the allegations. Harry says when the court says there is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing despite the document showing otherwise, then one does wonder how justice was ever going to be done. I mean, it's just bullshit. It's worse than that. Here's the fifth in line of succession challenging his king's court. Yes. And the king's judge. Yes. And in the end, this is actually why I said to what's going to happen during this week. because Harry now is kicking out the same as when he lost the Ravik thing and did that interview. He cannot accept actually democracy, the truth and the way the system works.

If it's not his liking, then it's appalling. And that is really why I said to what's going to happen during this week. Because actually he and Megynow, in my view, have reached the end of a chapter. They're now into a serious problem of survival. Yeah. Because they've been judged to be unreliable, untrustworthy by the king and by the judge. And what are they going to do for their income from now on?

They're not going to trash the family. Well, Katie, I mean, look, it's a really interesting question because it is a law of diminishing returns, right? They've realised the more they trashed the family, the more despise they became, particularly in this country. They have also realised, because the A-listers ran a mile because A-listers aren't stupid. They want to be with the king and the next king.

They want to be with Charles, William and Catherine. Taylor Swift is hanging out with William and Cameron. That's who the A-listers want to be with. They don't want to be with the renegades trashing their family that everyone hates, right? So they've had to pivot into, oh, nicely, nicely jam-making. And nobody wants to buy it, right? So what have they done?

They've come back here to get injured with the king. Exactly. And I think the king knows that and his people definitely know that because I've talked to them. And they've been very wary of being used as a PR tool to reconnect them back to the A-List Royals, which gives them a currency they can then manipulate and sell back in America.

And I don't think the royal family will let them do it. So then the question becomes, well, what happens? I mean, you know, how can he, with all the attention this defeat will bring, notwithstanding his wiesly words,

as you say, challenging a judge's verdict? I mean, it's pretty serious, actually. He's got to be careful. He doesn't get into contempt here. But, you know, how can he legitimately bring his family to this country, given he's attracted all this huge attention on him, which will mean

the media will be absolutely obsessing over where he is and what he's doing far more than they would have done otherwise. And at the backdrop of this, let's me try and be balanced. The Invictors games is a great thing, right? No one disputes that. That's got nothing to do with this. When he's talking about that, he has me.

I'm with him 100%. And there's no comparison to Andrew. But the interesting thing about, I mean, Andrew to me, by not being properly interviewed under caution in America and here, until he does that, I've got no time for it. It's like you deserve all your... having a thing. But he was stripped of his titles.

And I've said... But he still had funded security. Well, it's more complex because if you actually look at the way they apportion the armed security is what Harry wants, right, the proper armed security. That is the sticking point. Anne doesn't get it. Edward doesn't get it.

I mean, hardly any of them get it. They don't need it. We don't have guns in this country. To be fair, I don't think Princess Anne has had the type of... Girl was asked. I'm abducted. I don't think Princess Anne has had the type of commentary online, for example. But she literally was almost abducted.

I don't know if Prince Zan has suffered from the racist attacks. There's all self-inflicted. You may well think it's self-complicted. If you go on national television, Paula, Paula, come on whether he needs to self- needs a potential or not. Well, actually, it matters a lot, actually. In what way? Well, for example, if you're going to boast in your book for millions of pounds that you

kill 25 Taliban and how good it all felt, when you may piss off the Taliban, right? So then if the Taliban make threats, right, whose fault is that? But when he did that, the years ago that he did that, I understood that we were proud of him. For boasting about killing Taliban. The press, we're not suggesting, for example, that he should be hidden away and that he should hide away.

But now I'm hearing that that's a problem. My brother having been an army colonel, I can tell you, no. No soldier publicly boasts in that crude manner about killing the enemy. I'm not suggesting it wasn't rude. I'm not suggesting it wasn't vulgar. I'm not suggesting that it should never have been done, Piers. The point I'm making is when I see people challenging what Prince Harry does,

which is literally every time he opens his mouth, every time he brings. It's hard not to then contrast that with how they have treated other members of the royal family. Some of who... Well, they banished Andrew completely. How long did that take? All right, but they banished him completely. I don't think we can say all right, because it isn't all right. We can see using that as an example in terms of the security funding,

how differently Prince Andrew was, Andrew Matt Batten, Windsor, forgive me, how differently he was treated to Prince Harry. But we do respect what he's done with Invictus, and I do think we listen, and we understand that he knows exactly where these people are mental health-wise physically and that this is something that he's passionate about. The problem is it gets buried,

in the circus. It gets buried in the chaos. If he truly would have focused on Invictus this trip, then we wouldn't be sitting here around this panel talking about each other. Why convoluted it with a family visit that complicates everything. So tell me something. What do you think it's going to happen this week, Katie? Honestly, Piz, I don't know. I'm still just trying to digest the enormity of today.

I mean, I think you're probably right. I think there will be time spent with dispenses. You know, the king has been beyond magnanimous. He did extend that olive branch. You know, maybe Harry has just made it impossible for that meeting to happen. But I hope there is a way that he can meet with his grandchildren and see his son.

Because right now, I imagine Harry needs a bit of support. Yeah, and let's not forget Thomas Markle in all this, who lives 60 miles away and has never met either hit the man who married his daughter, who he brought up on his own for many years. Let's not forget that, or either of his grandchildren. And we know one of them. I mean, these are the two that put empathy and compassion.

We know one of the reasons why, that is. Of their work. Pears, we know one of the reasons why that happened. There may be many more, but we know one of the reasons why that happened. Are you sympathetic to Prince Harry into... As a family lawyer, you support ostracising her father from his grandchildren? I absolutely do not. And I think that the institution and I think that anybody who can support all of them in mediating

an outcome that is going to mean that this family finds peace that there must be the right outcome. So I asked the question, so I ask the question from the journalists here. Why do you then, if there is this negativity that's so much negativity that is garnered around Prince Harry,

why do you print it? Because a simple reason. I would know about it. As a member of the public, as a member of the public, I wouldn't know. Well, the question is that why do they keep on appearing on Netflix, because they're earning money.

Because they're earning money at other people's expense. But they have royal titles bestowed on them by our royal family of monarchy. And they're exploiting it. They're exploiting them for personal gain only. They did no duties. Do some bloody duties. Fine, fantastic. Come back and do your jobs. I agree with you.

Wonderful. When they're going to start? When are we going to see them on a Wednesday and Stoke at a flower show? Never. Never. Never. Never. And let me ask you.

I mean, is this marriage going to survive? Yes, because they need each other. I've never believed a divorce story. But the whole point about this bringing the back is no one trusts them. It was Megan who lied about the whole marriage, about the whole way which she was treated. It was her absolute dishonesty and always her intention to go back to Hollywood and capitalize. What were the two things that never appeared in his book, right?

Racism and the suicide stuff, right? Yeah. Which were the two things I challenged in real time. on Good Morning Britain, and I had to leave for disbelieving it. Right? They never appeared in his book. It was like it never got said. She was so suicidal that apparently she went to a senior person at the palace

who said she couldn't get any help. Human resources. Even though he was the head of a mental health charity. It was obviously bullshit. You're right, but is it much, much worse than that because all her interviews, all her staff has been to destroy the very thing that Paula says, we should now welcome her back. The last thing we should do is welcome Megan back.

The thing they should do... It made their bed in Montecito. Get on with it. But if I was... I mean, Katie, should the title... We've seen with Angie, you can remove the titles. It can be done. This idea before was, well, you can't do it.

Well, actually, you can. We literally just did it. And Andrew's not been convicted... Angie's not been convicted of any crime, right? But he's lost everything, and he offends for himself now. Why don't we just do that with these to say, look, okay, fine. You want to have a rival royal family?

I think that gets my go most when they go on these royal tolls. Like, they're still members of the family. Well, because... Doing the royal duties, they're not. They're doing even a personal gain. The outcome of the Sandringham Agreement was that they would keep their titles, but they were not allowed to commercialise them. But they do.

And I would argue that they do. And I suspect that if it was William on the throne, they would have lost their titles. You have to remember that the king is 77. He's living with cancer. Yeah. He wants to be. reconciled with his estranged son

and he wants to see his grandchildren. He does not want to create or extend, not create, but extend this riff between the united royal family. He is trying his best. I think William would be far more severe when it came to the Sussexes and I suspect when it is his time on the throne

he will be. I think the Sussexes need to be very careful but it will be interesting to see what the next steps are. Will they get that much anticipated family reunion with the king, it was handed to them on a plate. And as I said, on the Royals uncensored, Harry has made a pigsy.

You know who's going to be desperate Kinsey for that royal photo op now? Harry. He needs to change the mood music from he just lost a 50 million pound battle with the newspaper. He needs to change the mood music and she is highly manipulative. We know that.

And they'll be scheming and plotting about what they can do this week to change the mood. music and a picture with the king. This is why I'd be very wary if I was the king. And particularly the people around him his job it is to protect him. They're going to get used. They're going to get used.

But they're not going to allow themselves to use. That's the point. That's why they detail the whole story about Buckingham Palace. And that is why in the end he wasn't allowed in. It was incredible we got told all the all the loan down. That's because the palisades I was told and the king had their head in their hands because this project

Thor that had been months in the creation was was suddenly literally just being imploded by Harry and Megan. But I think you've probably witnessed the redirection of Prince Harry over the last six to 12 months. He wants to be seen as a serious person. I mean, 14 mentions or something of Todger in his book. He's trying to redirect the conversation.

Ukraine, challenging Putin, challenging Trump. That article he wrote in the news statesman about anti-Semitism, he wants to be taken as a serious person. And this loss jeopardizes his credibility. jeopardizes his authority, and I think it jeopardizes his future when it comes to making money. I do think he wanted to be a speaker and go on the circuit, and who's going to sit back and take him seriously when it appears that he is a dishonest person? Paula, do you think it's right that they go off on these royal tools, as if they're still

active working members of the royal family, putting a shift in, which is part of the deal for why we bestow these titles on them and let them live in palaces? Do you think it's right they do that? So as I understand it, they're not royal tools. What are you? What do you understand? As I understand it. You surely watch what we watch on TV. As I understand it, they are invited to countries. They are invited to attend either to give speech.

Why do you think they're invited? They're invited to attend either to give speeches. Why are they invited? In terms of their charitable work peers. In terms of their charitable work peers. Because of course, you do know that Harry and Ned undertake. You think they're invited for their charitable work? Yes.

You don't think they're invited because they call the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. And so on that basis... Paula. Are you saying peers? Are you saying that they're not invited to talk in relation to their charitable work?

For example, in regards to mental health or R12. It's a pure excuse. I can invite... I mean, you can say that they usually have an excuse. All the time. Most of it, I can't. Is it an excuse for you, peers? Of course it isn't.

You go because you want to support the charity. You know why they do these tours And I know why they do them. No. What I know is... What I know is is why they're invited. And that's the question that you asked. You know it's just an excuse.

The fact is, do I think... Sorry, Tom, do I think, to conclude my answer, do I think that we're at a loss in terms of what they could offer the royal family? Far too late. Far too late. That ship has gone. Absolutely, I think that is a loss for us.

No, the last thing we need is the Meghan and Harry back in England. Just think how many more books you could sell, Tom. I don't want them here. They have done enough damage. The Royal Family has a really difficult task now to rebuild respect and popularity. The last thing they need is Harry and Megan here. The good news is that since she's got healthy again,

Catherine in particular, I'm saying really now... Yes. In fact, both of them. I mean, I saw Williams' podcast with the Kelsey brothers. They were great. Yeah. He was great. That was a really cool thing to do.

And she was good on the piece. And she was great up in the peaks, right? Amazing achievement and great pitches. Exactly. And they should just keep doing their thing. Exactly. And they are. And I think as they continue to do their thing as brilliant as they do,

they feel more and more detached from the Sussex show or circus or whatever you want to call it. Because increasingly, I think you look at Megan and Harry and you see them as celebrities, far more than you see them as royals. And actually, that works to William and Catherine's favour. Well, I want to end this by, A, pointing out that Royal. which is doing gangbuster viewing numbers. So congratulations, Katie, and to others involved. We'll be back on Thursday with a new episode.

Yeah, we're going to have a cracking episode. It's going to be must watch, obviously. I mean, I think there's plenty to talk about. Well, we have one of the most talked about journalists in the water. Kinsey, you're joining us, I think. I am. Which is great. I'm going to end how we started by just reminding people

what the judge said about are Royals uncensored hosts. I found Miss Nicol to be a credible and impressive witness. I accept her evidence as honest. So after all the trashing you got, a complete and utter vindication of you and your journalism. So congratulations. Thank you. I said you're not going to make me cry on this show.

You're not going to make me cry on the show. I'm just so glad we've got you on Royals Unsensored. Thank you. You're the most famous and credible and honest and impressive royal correspondent in the world right now because a judge has said so. Thank you. I really appreciate you coming on, doing the show for us,

doing Rawls Unsensit. I know what you've been through. I know how difficult it's been. I know how emotional it's been for you. Big win. Thank you. Congratulations. And thank you to all of my panel.

Great to see you. Even you, Paul, is defending the indefensible. Thank God somebody he does. We'll be agreeing. Great to see you all. Thank you very much. Pierce Morgan Unsensored 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 Piers Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free.

Independent uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.