The Megyn Kelly Show - Kate Middleton's Health, Dan Wootton Speaks Out For First Time Since Cancelation, and Pressures on Parents, with Tim Carney | Ep. 745

Episode Date: March 13, 2024

Megyn Kelly is joined by Dan Wootton, host of "Dan Wootton Outspoken,” for an exclusive interview to discuss the crazy censorship regime in the U.K., the on-air moment that led to his forced exit from GB News, what was really behind the "witchhunt" against him, the "smear campaign" against him, whether Prince Harry is behind the “smear campaign” against him that led to his GB News firing, Harry's desperation to bring down Dan and Piers Morgan, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry continuing to play the victim and displaying hypocrisy, Harry and the left weaponizing the British police, Meghan Markle's latest absurd comments at SXSW, why Dan is apologizing to Johnny Depp over his past Amber Heard coverage, what he's learned over the last year about toxic relationships and journalism, what he knows about Kate Middleton's health and how she is "very unwell," what really happened with the edited photo, how the public is reacting and the conspiracy theories, the health issues within the Royal Family right now, the level of privacy the Royal family is entitled to, and more. Then Tim Carney, author of "Family Unfriendly," joins to discuss the parent “trap” in society that leads to more pressure and less freedom for kids, parents’ egos and how it affects their children, why kids need independence to grow, the value of boredom, the importance of faith in raising a family, why we need to increase the American birthrate, and more. Wootton- https://www.danwoottonoutspoken.com/Carney- https://www.amazon.com/Family-Unfriendly-Culture-Raising-Harder/dp/006323646X Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Today we are joined by one of our longtime friends and multiple time guest of our show, who you may have noticed hasn't been on for quite some time, about 10 months now. Dan Wooden is a well-known reporter in the British media. He's a star, with stints at The Sun, The Daily Mail, and ITV, to name just a few. He's best known for his consistent and unwavering reporting on the royal family. He was the journalist who broke the story of Megxit when Prince Harry and Meghan

Markle decided to step back from their roles as royals. He's broken many huge exclusives over there in the UK. And this past year, he dealt with two major controversies that you may have heard about. One that led to him being let go from his role as a, quote, presenter, that's the word they use for anchor over in the UK, from GB News, and the end of his successful column at the Daily Mail as well. Well, today he speaks out for the first time in this exclusive interview to share what's happened and what's next. And we're lucky to have him today because there's no shortage of royal news to get to who isn't obsessed with what is happening with Kate Middleton. This is a story that is transfixed everyone. It's sort of like Tiger King. It's

one of those things that just brought everybody together, irrespective of their politics, their background, their gender, their class. What is going on with the princess of Wales? We'll get to it all and more with Dan, who is announcing today the launch of a new show, soon to come, and Substack, now posted. Dan Wooten, outspoken. Dan, so great to have you back. How are you? Oh, Megan, I'm okay.

I've missed you because we were obviously having our weekly chats, weren't we? But behind the scenes, you have been incredibly supportive of me. There have obviously been some really dark moments, but you always saw the funny side, because I remember you said to me, you were the first person in the world who has been cancelled for not being offended enough by something. And I thought, yeah, that sort of shows where we're at and maybe why I have to be independent. Yes, we've had a lot of talks about it. And of course, the audience knows I highly recommend this, Lane, for someone who really

just needs to be honest about the news, about their opinions on society. And it's even worse over in the UK, where you have this, I know you call it off communist regulator, this thing called off-com that like your annoying aunt is constantly saying like, don't say that. You can't say that either. You have to talk about it this way. If you're going to say this, you have to say this other thing. Like to have your words so heavily policed must have been infuriating. It was because what it means, Megan, is actually no one can speak genuinely freely in the British broadcast media. There is controlled opposition because you are controlled. And Ofcom, or the Ofcommunists, as you say, released this report and they said,

we're very concerned that the GB News management were not able to control their presenter. Well, darn right, I'm unable to be controlled. And I'm proud of that. And I was always proud of the fact that I was the executive editor of the show. I wouldn't just say something because someone had parroted it into my earpiece. But I think what is the most infuriating thing, Megan, with Ofcom is the things that they don't investigate compared to what they do. And remember, this is an organization that's been taken over by the radical left, as much of the government has here in the UK, or at least the government departments. So, for example, on the BBC, the British Bashing Corporation, as I call it, the left-wing public broadcaster, they actually had a woman go on and said that she wanted to kill the whiteys.

The Ofcom decided not to investigate. Then Joe Brand, a so-called comedian, went on Radio 4, a BBC radio station, and said that she wanted to douse Nigel Farage, the big time Brexit guy over here, with battery acid. Ofcom didn't investigate. They also didn't investigate when a pundit on ITV described the balcony of Buckingham Palace as being horribly white. But what they are doing is they are coming for any commentator or presenter who they consider anti-establishment, challenging the norms and broadly on the right. And that's where you to BBC. And you were one of the inaugural hosts over there, presenters, and had the most successful show. And I appeared on it weekly, and I absolutely

loved your show, as did everyone. That's why it was so successful. And bizarrely, it ended after the following nothing of an exchange. I mean, I've been railing about this with my audience. They know, because we've had Lawrence Fox on, we've had Calvin Robinson on, and they know you. It was a nothing. It's amazing to me that this led to the end, ultimately, of the show. Lawrence Fox's time at GB, Calvin Robinson for defending him. I willingly chose not to go back on GB after they did this to my friends. But here is the exchange that the audience, it's going to be hard for them to believe that this is what got everybody in so much trouble. It was Lawrence commenting on a woman

who's also out there, very outspoken, who was scoffing at the notion that men's mental health has deteriorated to the point where they need their own minister in the government to oversee it, as I think the women already have. But in any event, he was reacting to her. He was recoiling, having had several friends who have fallen into deep depressions, and I think he said even taken their own lives. Yes. He wasn't having it.

And here's the exchange that you guys had on your show. Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman ever. Ever. Who wasn't an incel. Who wasn't a cucked little incel. a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman ever, ever, who wasn't an incel, who wasn't a cucked little incel. That little woman has been fed, spoon-fed oppression day after day after day after day, starting with the lie of the gender wage gap. And she sat there and I'm going like, if I met you in a bar and that was like sentence three, chances of me just walking away are just huge. We need powerful, strong, amazing women who make great points for themselves. We don't need these sort of feminist 4.0. They're pathetic and embarrassing. Who'd want to shag that? Oh, Lawrence. Well, look, she... Sorry, I'm in trouble. I'm just going to provide a touch of balance from her

because she did actually respond to this earlier today saying that she regretted her comments, but she didn't apologise. Yes, so there you go. And she's a very beautiful woman, Lawrence. Very beautiful. There you go. That's it. That's it, Dan. And that was basically the end eventually of your time at GB, the whole investigation off com, the same one that led to horrible whiteys. That's no problem. But this, this requires a national outrage. I mean, now having had some time to look back on it, how are you feeling about it?

Well, it was an establishment witch hunt, pure and simple. This story was leading the news in the UK for 48 hours. I had all the mainstream media camped outside my house. The former prime minister, Gordon Brown, went on Sly News and demanded that I never broadcast again in the UK. Now, two things. Firstly, the words did not come out of my mouth, right? Secondly, as you can clearly see there, I was providing the balance for the off communists. I read out what she had to say about the story. And then I made the point that actually, Lawrence, you're saying you don't want to shag her. Well, she's a very beautiful woman. Apparently, Megan, that makes me some sort of massive misogynist because the off communists said that that response calling Ava Santina

actually compounded the offense. So you can't win in a situation like this. You were supposed to say, actually, you as a gay man should have been like, I would shag that. That would have saved it. Exactly. It's completely nuts. And you know what, Megan? This woman who acted all horrified about the fact that Lawrence used the shag word and appeared on the front cover of the Daily Mail saying, woe is me, when actually she was counting her bank balance because she became quite a famous left-wing pundit as a result of this incident. She had been quite a user of the shag word in regards to men on social media for many, many years. This was a completely

confected outrage and it was designed to end my career on GB News, as you say. And look, I say this with a lot of modesty because it's up to GB News who they want to put on their channel. And clearly, for whatever reason, and we'll probably discuss it, they were under a lot of pressure when it came to me. But I do think the decision is really peculiar. I mean, we were the top rated show on GB News. We had overtaken Nigel Farage. We'd always been number two in the ratings right from the start. But in May last year, and in a large part, thanks to you, Megan, we overtook Faraj and we were the number one show on the channel. We were flying. So at that point, that is when this very obvious witch hunt against me began. But I think it's

insane. I think it's completely insane that effectively I lost my mainstream media platform for words that I did not say for, as you put it, not being offended enough by something. And remember, Megadale show aired at 9pm at night. It could be a bit wild. We're all adults. I just think, yeah, it's disappointing, but I guess I've come to this place where I realize, and I've obviously looked at what you're doing, looked at what Tucker Carlson's doing, looked at what Dan Bongino's doing. All three of you, I would argue, actually have more influence than when you were hosting top-rated shows on Fox News, because we are going through this media revolution. And I remember

speaking to Dan Bongino after the incident, and he said, look, Dan, GB News folded quicker than a cheap suit. You don't want to be working for people like that. Actually, you've got to ride this wave now. And so I'm going to try and do what you three have done very successfully in the US media here in the UK. And I really do believe there's a big gap in the market for it. There is a huge gap. They need it. The UK needs you, especially given just how regulated things are. They need a place that speaks to them honestly. That's what was so disappointing about GB is that they were supposed to be the alternative to the BBC and stand up for free speech. And, you know, if things get a little body or whatever, fine, then, then take the hit,

but they didn't. And so it was a disappointment to me personally, because I do have fondness for a lot of the people and the executives over there. FYI, I did reach out to them just to say, Hey, you know, Dan's going to come on. Do you want to say anything? And, uh, the statement was to the effect of, uh, we wish Dan well in his future endeavors. So not wanting to weigh in clearly on the substance. Let's go back because you and I, I think both believe that it wasn't just about that moment on the air. There was, as you point out, a smear campaign that was launched against you several months before, and it was ugly. It was ugly. And, um, GB did not get rid of you. Daily mail did not totally get rid of you. I think you were placed on suspension

when this first sort of scandal broke. I think it was the second fake scandal. I don't know if they just use that as an excuse or what, but let's talk about it to the extent you would like to, um, where this website, um, in the UK, the Byline Times, I think it's just a website. I don't think it's a paper publication too, launched a story accusing you of having years ago been, I don't want to get it right, under a pseudonym, having gone to colleagues at an earlier place you worked and asked them under a pseudonym for nude pictures or pictures of sexual acts for money, not disclosing that it was you. And at the time you went on the air on your show and said, look, I can't say that much about this because they were, they demanded a criminal investigation that got started. That's all been dropped against you. You've both investigations have said no charges can be brought

here, of course. But you did say there's more to the story and I deny the allegations. So do you think that that was the real reason? And do you want to weigh in at all now that you can on the allegations? Yeah, no, I absolutely do, Megan, because this organization turned my life upside down on lies. And it has completely changed the way that I look at the media. You know, I was executive editor of The Sun. I was someone that would have reported on people's personal lives in the past. And after what's happened to me, I've done a complete 180 when it comes to these sorts of stories, because what Byline Times did was weaponize false allegations to destroy my reputation and destroy my mainstream media career. And to some extent,

and they'll be celebrating this, they succeeded, even though I feel like I have this great opportunity now. And what they did and what was so disturbing, Megan, and why I couldn't say much about it at the time, is they went to the police with this false information to try and force the police's hand to launch an investigation. Of course, when that happens, you can then not say much about it because the investigation drags on for a number of months. So I was always very clear to everyone that these allegations are a lie, that there was certainly no criminal criminality involved at all, ever. And I will prove that. And I did prove that not only to my bosses, but to the police who have dropped both of the investigations. But what was so disturbing,

Megan, is the people who were behind this. So the people who were working with Byline Times were a convicted extortionist, a guy who had actually gone to jail for extorting £90,000 out of gay men. The judge had described this guy when uh she sent him to jail for four years as a compulsive danger to society so that was one of them uh the second was a convicted violent criminal who had tried to extort me out of a hundred thousand pounds just a couple of weeks earlier and then the other megan was my ex And this is a really hard thing to talk about. And it's really mortifying and really embarrassing because obviously I have the most wonderful partner today who has stood by me through all of this. And I hate the fact that I have to talk about this

horrible person, an abusive guy who was in my life 11 years prior. And he effectively had concocted a story and had been working on this story for about five years to try and destroy me. Now, I was able to present to the police evidence that what he was saying was completely untrue. I mean, Megan, I have emails from this guy admitting to being a psychopath, admitting to having dark sexual urges. I mean, this was nothing more than a false allegation. But what I've learned is that if the media is weaponized and the criminal justice system is weaponized, and this is something you'll see a lot in the US as well, especially against right-wing political figures, it can do so much damage. So I do want to talk about it, actually, because this is now going to be one of the

overwhelming missions of my life to ensure that due process returns to the media, to the justice system. Because I'll tell you what I went through. I went through trial by social media and it was based on lies and it was completely perpetuated by people who were actuated by malice. And unfortunately, my employers, I do believe, gave into that. And I think that was wrong. But I understand why, because they've got advertisers saying, what the heck is going on? Why is Dan Moutin trending again? Why is there this police investigation? I mean, honestly, it is so easy now to conduct a complete witch hunt against someone because people are so quick to dive in and follow up

false allegations. And I mean, as I say, and look, Megan, I'm happy to sit down with anyone. I remember I spoke to you about it at the time. I'll sit down with anyone like I did with the police. And I'll tell you the names of these people. I'll show you the emails. I'll show you the proof. But the problem is a lot of men don't have that proof. Yeah, no, that's exactly right. There's a lot in there. So just to unpack a little bit, we reached out to the people involved. You didn't say the ex's name, and I'm not going to either here, but he did give us some background. And I think basically this person denies having ever been convicted of a crime. Um, and that's important because to say otherwise, if it's not true is defamatory. And also this publication, it is

print publication, I guess this, um, this, uh, the one that took the shot at you, they stand by every word of their story. They do not think they've gotten anything wrong. And kind of, I think, you know, some people might be asking Dan about the statement that you made on GB when it all broke, because there you did kind of take some responsibility for having been, having made mistakes in your personal life and, you know, being sorry about them. You said, okay, let's see. I pulled it up. You said, I'm a fallible human being. And like all fallible human beings, I've made errors of judgment in the past, but the criminal allegations are simply untrue. You said, but I'm here with a lot of humility. And you said, who doesn't have regrets? Should I be canceled for them many years later? Or do you accept that

I have learned and changed? There are dark forces out there trying to take this brilliant channel down, meaning GB News at the time. So, I mean, is this a situation, Dan, where there's a kernel of truth and it just got blown up? Or, you know, what, like what happened? Because there are a lot of people who do stupid things in their 20s that they go on to become public figures and live to really regret. We now have the word of two law enforcement agencies that nothing criminal was done and that that was not a true allegation against you. So, and look, I have no desire to go back through a smear campaign against you, my friend, but I do want to give you the chance to clear the air on it if you'd like to.

Well, I guess there's a couple of things I'd say. Firstly, in terms of the statement on GB News, I was under a lot of pressure. As you can imagine, you know what happens when a story like this breaks. You have management and you have owners and investors of said channel. And I was under a lot of pressure to go on air and express some humility. But I look back now and I've spoken to a lot of people who I respect on this. And a lot of those folks think I made a mistake, actually, because why should I be apologetic for anything that's gone down in my private life as long as I was always acting in a moral way and a legal way, which I always was. And fundamentally, Megan, byline times, multiple times accused me of illegality, of breaking the law. Well, believe me, right? The police would love to get me. They would absolutely love to get me. If there was a scrap of evidence, Megan, believe me, they would have handed it on.

I mean, the process in the UK is that if there's any evidence, if the police think there's any chance of a potential charge, they hand the evidence on to the Crown Prosecution Service. That's just the first step in the process. And the Crown Prosecution Service look at the evidence and decide if there's a realistic chance of conviction. And if so, you are charged. Megan, the police, neither police force even handed anything on to the Crown Prosecution Service because there was nothing. There was no evidence. Now, look, of course, I was a young gay man in a very toxic, abusive relationship. And there's lots of things that I do regret from that relationship. Firstly, that I ever stayed with this person. Should I have to talk about it now when I'm 40 years old in a very happy relationship? No, I don't think I should.

I don't want to. This guy, you can imagine I've really considered, do I release the emails that he sent me that prove my case? And actually, what this guy wants is attention because he's one of life's losers. He's never achieved anything in his life and he has huge jealousy of me. I mean, I was looking back at our emails and he said, you know, I wanted to be a newspaper editor when I was growing up. I wanted to do something with my life. Well, you can imagine it must be pretty hard when you're seeing your ex achieve those things that you hoped you would achieve.

But personally, I just hope he moves on with his life now because we have been broken up for 11 years, Megan. He has caused huge damage to the mental health of my current partner. And I think he should move on. And the other two people who were involved in this who actually authored the story, and I'm sure we'll get to them shortly, I think they should move on too. Because they wanted this to go through a criminal process. It did. I cooperated fully.

I have been completely exonerated. What more can you do? I mean, once the police have said there's nothing there and you've also lost two jobs at this point, it's like, what more is there to be done? Yeah. Well, my question about my lawyer, Megan, don't don't blame me. A brilliant guy, a very brilliant guy. He said to me, they will not stop until you're dead, dad. They will not stop until you've lost everything. These are the types of people we're dealing with, Megan. These are very sick human beings. I mean, some of the things I've done, I can't, I mean, you'll think it's so crazy, but they actually rang the police, Megan, and said that they believed that I was going to take my own life so that the police had to come to my house and do a welfare check.

Now, I believe the reason that Byline Times did that was so that if I had taken my own life, they would be able to say, oh, but we were concerned. You know, we were concerned. How do you know it was Byline Times that called the police and said you needed a wellness check? Because the police told me. Oh my goodness. It was Dan Evans, the reporter from Byline Times. And I'm sorry, stronger people would not be here today, but I was not going to let these liars and losers destroy me. Wow. I know it's, but you've been through the ringer, Dan. I, they give us, um, a bit of a statement. I mean, it's, it's lengthy and we can post it online, but I can't read the whole thing here. We'll be here all day. It basically says they exist to

serve the public interest, hold powerful to account no matter how powerful the person is. We stand by every word we've written. We will continue to cover what is still a developing news story. So I don't think they're ready to back off, Dan. For democracy to function, it's vital that journalism can challenge false narratives. Well, you and I agree with that. Also hypocrisy in public life and the abuse of power. And then they go on to make additional allegations about what they've reported, which we've covered. So that's them defending their own publicizing

publications about you. I don't have any wish to get any further mired in this. Look, what I know, and I've known you for a few years now, is you're a good man. You're an important broadcaster. You're brave. You're bold. You're a truth teller. You've broken huge stories. You've always had my back. I think what's been done to you is a public smear campaign. And I think even if you did some acts that you're embarrassed about when you were, you know, in your young twenties, that shouldn't define you now. Um, you have a whole're at the peak of your power to come forward and try to hurt you. And that's it's very obvious to me why that was done. And I don't think this is like and, you know, I think you and I disagreed on the Russell Brand allegations because I was really outraged by them. Many people weren't. But I don't think this is the same because in that case, he was literally accused of sexually assaulting and in that case, raping a woman. He denies it. Okay. But to me, that is a totally different category than if you allegedly use a pseudonym to try to get people to send you naughty pictures. I'm not saying either one is okay or right. Well, that of course, but this isn't the same. And there are certain, like people have to be able to go on to have public careers without having to atone for every stupid ass move they made in their twenties.

Okay. That's just where I am on it, Dan, without condemning you or giving life to the allegations. No, no, no. And that's my point. Look, I'm, it's such a difficult one when you've gone through something like this, because you talk about the. And as you say, you then give them further life. But that didn't happen, Megan. I mean, the point is, is that the ex-boyfriend was trying to blame me or set me up for things that he had done over the course of the relationship, which I was able to prove to the police. So that's the first thing to say very clearly. But the bigger point, I think, is that I have been in a monogamous, happy, beautiful relationship for the past four years. That is my life now. What public interest is there, Megan? And what I was getting up to

15 years ago in my personal life. Well, wait, that's the question. That's the question I know you're trying to answer right now. What are the interests behind this? And is it bigger than just some ex with an ax to grind speaking out to the byline times and i know that you actually do believe that there may have been a more powerful hand behind the interest in your personal life or taking you down so explain what you think what your belief is well so dan evans Well, so Dan Evans, who is the reporter for the Byline Times, who authored these stories, was with one other man, Megan. He is, and by the way, Byline Times doesn't reveal this on their stories. He is the UK's most prolific phone hacker. He is a convicted criminal who avoided jail despite being the most prolific phone hacker across the Sunday Mirror and News of the World titles. I'm sure

you remember, Megan, but for folk who don't, this was a huge scandal in the UK that shut down the News of the World, Rupert Murdoch's Sunday newspaper in 2011. Now, I was working there at the time. Dan Evans, in order to avoid jail, he turned on all of the folk who had been hacking phones with him at these two newspapers. I was not working there at the time. I testified in the Leveson inquiry that I never was involved in hacking a phone or any illegal activity during my time at any newspapers. And I stand by that. So my conscience on this is incredibly clear. But Dan Evans was a phone hacker. He was a very prolific phone hacker because he turned on the newspapers, Megan. He ended up in a very interesting spot where the people who want to destroy the free press in the UK,

largely led by this lawyer called David Sherbourne, who represents folk like Alton John and Prince Harry, all of a sudden were very interested in him. So Dan Evans is like the ultimate poacher turned gamekeeper. He was the hacker who actually did all of this illegal stuff at the newspapers and then has spent the past 10 years, he claims, trying to atone for his crimes, but effectively working with these celebrities who feel that they were hacked. Well, guess who the most famous person he's been working with who wants to bring down the free press in the UK? A certain Prince Harry. Now, I know for a fact that Dan Evans was at court with Prince Harry last year when Prince Harry went to court, you remember, in a case against the Daily Mirror, which is largely driven by Prince Harry's absolute hatred of Piers Morgan,

who was an editor at the Daily Mirror at the time. So he was at court with Harry. And further, Meghan, I have learned that Prince Harry has been in negotiations over a number of months to sit down with this crazy organization, Byline Times, which are completely unregulated and full of mad people for a Talal interview. So my very strong... Just to be clear. So if that's true, then that would be the fifth in line for the throne sitting down with a convicted felon for an interview? Yeah. I don't know whether Dan Evans himself is going to conduct that interview, but Dan Evans and Prince Harry have been in communication. He was at court with Prince

Harry. He has worked closely with Prince Harry's legal teams on his cases versus the Daily Mirror, and there's another one coming versus News UK, which was the publisher of News of the World and also the Daily Mail. So for people who say, and there are lots of people, Megan, who say, oh, don't be so ridiculous, Dan, as if Harry gives a damn about any of this. Well, seriously, you don't know Prince Harry. The mission of Harry's life is now to bring down his enemies in the British media. And who are the two most high profile enemies of Prince Harry? Myself and Piers Morgan. And if you look closely at the coverage in byline times of Piers Morgan, Megan, they have been calling for the Metropolitan Police.

So here is, again, byline times weaponizing the British justice system. They are calling for the police, the Metropolitan Police, to reopen the criminal investigation into Piers Morgan's hacking of phones at the Daily Mirror or the alleged hacking of phones. Now, do you know what I would say about that? Just to be clear, though, just to be clear, these are your beliefs. You report for a fact that they've been at least in contact, that this guy at Byline Times has been in contact with Harry's legal team because you saw them in court together. You believe that they've been in communication beyond that for an interview, which would be extraordinary, I think, for Prince Harry to be speaking to, you know, a group that's not perhaps that well known or respected with, that's my impression from our discussion. Um, and we know that Prince Harry, I mean, I've experienced that myself and

just in watching their, their lashing out and their, their many lawsuits against the media, they're very litigious. And he and Megan have filed multiple lawsuits against media figures trying to shut down publications or punish publications that come out with pieces that they disapprove of. And you believe that there's a chance he's behind this, that he's either just only too happy to see the byline times go after you or maybe even inspired it? Indeed, because remember, there's another aspect to the story, which is that Prince Harry admitted in his book Spare that at the Sandrinum summit, now remember, this was the big meeting that was called by the late queen after I'd revealed that Harry and Meghan wanted to leave

the British royal family and it caused this constitutional crisis at the time. Harry admits in his book that one of the main conversations between William and Harry on the day was regarding my reporting because Harry had this belief that I was being, and we've spoken about it before on your show, Megan, but that I was being leaked stories by people within the royal family. And again, Harry feeding information to Byline Times has spent years attempting to publish the story. They actually ran it on their front page. You had to get deep, deep down into their 10,000 word missive until you actually reach the fact that these claims have been investigated thoroughly again by the royal family and the police, Megan. And again, there was no truth to it. So Harry was unable to file his legal case against me.

But this just paints a picture of how desperate Harry is to bring down his enemies within the British press. Now, when it comes to me, I find it quite extraordinary because what did I do? I reported the truth. I mean, no one has denied any of my stories. And of course, I was talking to everyone. I was talking to people close to Charles. I was talking to people close to the late queen.

I was talking to people close to William. But I was also speaking to people close to Meghan and Harry. That's my job, Meghan. I was a journalist. That is not illegal. These two are so vindictive and never miss an opportunity to play the victim while behind the scenes actually behaving like villains. Meghan Markle was just out there at the South by Southwest, you know, conference just the other day complaining again about how badly

she's been bullied. And she tried to play the pregnancy card too. It's like, it's called being a public figure. You know, you and I have talked about this many times. Let's talk about the day I was breastfeeding my newborn baby. I just got home from the hospital and Jon Stewart did an 11 minute vicious piece on me. Okay. It happens. It's not nice, but you're a public figure. You're the one who wanted to marry into the Royal family. This is why most people like Cressida, the ex-girlfriend of Harry didn't want to do that. Um, plus she was dying to be a star. Who are we kidding? She was dying for the coverage. She just didn't want any of it to be negative. So here she was Dan just the other

day, again, bitching about her media coverage and how mean in particular women are. Watch this. I keep my distance from it right now just for my own well-being. But the bulk of the bullying and abuse that I was experiencing in social media and online was when I was pregnant with Archie and with Lily and with a newborn with each of them. And you just think about that. And to really wrap your head around why people would be so hateful. It's not catty, it's cruel. You could either succumb to it or nearly succumb to how painful that is. What I find the most disturbing, frankly, especially as a supporter of women, is how much of the hate is

women completely spewing that to other women. And I cannot make sense of that. OMG. Why would people be so hateful and so cruel? Number one, it's called reporting. You guys caused a lot of controversy by taking advantage of the queen, being given every advantage by her. And then were absolutely ungrateful, started leaking to the media and left, left the British people, wanted to keep your titles, wanted them to keep funding your security, wanted all the benefits and none of the downsides. And that's why people said mean things about you. It's not hateful or cruel. It's opinions that you earned. And secondly, Dan, as a supporter of women, as a supporter of women, I really don't understand how the women could critique me. Really? Ask Kate Middleton how supportive Meghan Markle is of her.

Indeed. And there is so much rank hypocrisy here. And I'm actually already working on a piece for my new platform, Dan Wooden Outspoken, Megan, about- Everybody's got to go subscribe. Support Dan, go subscribe. We need him to succeed in this mission. Dan Wooden Outspoken. And if you can be a paid subscriber,

so much the better, because we need Dan to actually be able to put food on his table. Keep going, keep going. Thank you, Megan. Thank you, Megan. But yeah, I'm working on this piece for the new platform about the Sussex squad. Now,

these are the internet trolls who literally work on behalf of Harry and Megan's message. Now, Harry and Megan are obviously removed from them directly, but what they have never done is come out and say, we abhor the behavior of the Sussex squad and we encourage the Sussex squad to stop their behavior. And the behavior that I'm talking about, by the way, is trolling far worse than anything else I've seen on the internet. I mean, these are the nastiest, most horrible, vindictive people in the world. The biggest trolls on the internet are connected to Harry and Meghan via the Sussex Squad. And why I'm taking a particular interest in them, Meghan, is I have discovered that the Sussex Squad were actually behind many of the false allegations put out about me. This is before Byline Times had even published anything and were also fundamental in fundraising via crowdfunding £100,000

four byline times to continue their false witch hunt against me. So if Meghan Markle really cares about the internet trolls, right, why doesn't she speak out against the Sussex squad? Oh, please. She doesn't care at all. She only wants to see herself discussed in the most laudatory and glowing terms. She gets very upset when you report the negative things about her, no matter how true they may be, or whether it's your genuinely held opinion like it's mine, that she's a selfish, catty brat and that not even living in

a castle and marrying a prince could make her happy, which is why she had to destroy him and break up the royal family. And she's still playing the victim while potentially behind the scenes trying to ruin careers. Is that bullying, Megan? How about you, Harry? And while he may want to claim all day long, Dan, that he doesn't care about you, he mentioned you in his book. He took a personal shot at you, called you, quote, a sad little man. So if he doesn't care at all about Dan Wooden or the reporting you do, then why would he elevate you to a mention by name in his memoir? He does care. And I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn behind the scenes he's doing what he can to get back at you.

Well, as I say, at the Sandringham Summit, you would think they had far bigger fish to fry than Dan Wooten's reporting. But that was what he chose to have the conversation with Prince William about. And we know that he is publicly campaigning now for Piers Morgan to be reinvestigated by the police. And look, this is crazy stuff, Megan. This is crazy stuff. Like, there is so much going wrong in the UK today, right? This is a country where you can get your house broken into,

where you can be violently mugged on the street, and the police will simply not bother to turn up. Something like 2% of burglaries are now properly investigated in the UK because the police are so overstretched. And Harry, who doesn't even live here anymore, believes that the police's priority, the Metropolitan Police's priority should be reinvestigating Piers Morgan. It makes me sick the way that the Byline Times and Prince Harry are weaponizing the police and the police actually need to man up now and stop being influenced by this sort of thing. Because in terms of the investigation into me, Megan, it was a colossal waste of time. And do you know what's happening? There's now a two-tier justice system. Because let me tell you, if I was a plumber and some crazy ex and some crazy convicted criminal went into the police station and made nutty claims about me with no evidence whatsoever,

the police would laugh them out of that station and would not investigate. So what we're now seeing is that public figures are so vulnerable because of the way that the police and the justice system is being weaponized by the left. And it's wrong. Just to go back, the Daily Mail reported about some of this that you just told our viewers and our listeners. Well, first this, BBC in 2014 reported that Dan Evans, the man we're talking about behind Byline Times, admitted accessing the voicemails of 200 celebrities, politicians, and sports people listening to more than 1,000 voicemails while he worked at News of the World. So yes, to your point, that's been well documented. Daily Mail

article in May of 2023 about him and his connection to Prince Harry. Okay. Again, for the people listening at home, this is the publication that did the hit piece on Dan and says, it's not going to stop. It's going to keep trying to investigate Dan. They, this guy, Dan Evans, went and testified, gave evidence, as they call it in the UK, as a Harry witness, as a witness for Prince Harry in his case against the alleged hackers present day. This is like sort of a separate hacking case that he was just raising in one. And they reported that a convicted phone hacker whose evidence is helping Prince Harry to sue the newspapers. That's Dan. This is a reference to Dan Evans. They're reporting that Dan Evans threatened to, quote, destroy a private investigator unless he came on side. That was the testimony in court. This man named Paul Hawks, H-A-W-K-E-S,

said he was warned by this guy, Dan Evans, that if he did not, quote, play ball, that he and his firm would be ruined by an anti-press group called Hacked Off. He's giving this testimony about Dan Evans. I know this is in the weeds for our American audience. But if you follow the strain, what Dan is alleging is that this guy who is convicted of phone hacking now is helping Prince Harry, who we know can't stand Dan. does repeated in-depth pieces on alleged criminal behavior by Dan, which then does get to investigations, both of which conclude there was no criminal wrongdoing here. That's where we are today. And you first got suspended by the Daily Mail, which then cut ties with you after that, the nothing burger with Lawrence Fox and the GB News folks stood by you when this first hit. But then when the Lawrence Fox thing happened, cut ties with you. Look, frankly, I can understand them being like, there's too much heat,

we got to run. But who caused the heat? And was the heat real? And was it justified? And should this have been given a chance to play out in the courts properly before real consequences were served? And effectively, at least for the past year, you were silenced for 10 plus months or however long it's been now since the summer. You've been silenced. And over there, Dan, unlike here, there hasn't been this robust digital channel that you can relatively easily, you know, jump into and continue your voice. You know, you're really one of the first trying to do this. I know Mark Stein, though he's up in Canada, he's also trying to do this. But it's not as easy there as it is here. But maybe they knew that.

That's one of the reasons why the whole thing is so pernicious. Absolutely. And it's one of the reasons why there has been such a desire to destroy GB News by the left in the UK. But that's why I think GB News should have stood strong, actually, because the problem is, Megan, they've come for me now. They've succeeded. Well, they're now going for Nigel Farage and trying to get him taken off air. So they're going for the new number one host. This is what happens when you empower these people. But I would say to byline times, what, you're going to keep investigating me? Investigate what? You're going to keep on wasting police time. This is a witch hunt.

It is a smear campaign. People have seen through it. And I should say, Megan, that I have now received a public apology and damages from the two biggest left-wing newspapers in the UK, The Guardian and The Daily Mirror, who followed up on Byline Times' reporting. So to be honest, they can say whatever they want now. They can say whatever they want about me, because I can't be cancelled now. I work for myself. Welcome to my world. It's wonderful. But that's what's wonderful because truly, I know you, I've seen your scoops over the years. You're very bold. You're unafraid, but you get massive scoops. You're not afraid. That's a

difference between you and so many. You're not afraid to report the truth on very powerful people, even if it's someone who's a part of the royal family. And that can make you a big target. And you either need an organization behind you that's got a really steely spine, or you need to be on your own. And that's the way of the future. And you're exactly where you need to be. All right, there's much, much more to get to. We haven't even touched on Kate Middleton. And more besides that, because Dan's got something he wants to talk about with respect to Johnny Depp, who sued Dan. So it's like, Dan, you're in the middle of every story. Stand by. We're going to get to it all. Quick break first.

All right, Dan. So first of all, you're going to launch a show like this show, like a podcast and YouTube. It's not yet there, but you're gearing up, but how, like, can they, cause I went on there today. I'm going to subscribe. I'm going to pay money, but today I just clicked, you know, give me the information. Um, so can they do it for free or must they pay or just like, let's get the audience involved in how they can connect with you? No, I mean, look, I really believe in building this community. I understand how times are really tough for a lot of people. So it's absolutely imperative for me that the content is free.

But of course, if you can afford to help me build this community, have a little bit more access with me, then I would love that. But no, the show will be available far and wide and free. Oh, I love it. And I love, love, love that you're getting back on your feet. That's the best part. That is the best part. You know, it's like the, um, I remember when Brigham retired at Fox news, I had a picture of the two of us and Brett bear on a roller coaster at the mall of America in Minnesota, where we had all gone for the Republican national convention one year. And it's one of those great pictures where we're all sort of smiling and yelling as we start the descent after going over the top. And I wrote to him something to the effect of

sometimes the best part comes after the climb, you know, and I think that's true. I really believe that's true in many ways. And I think you're going to start to feel that, right? Like you have a new climb to do, but you established yourself as a national, international star and respected journalist. And now you get to do it on your own terms, which is going to be wonderful to watch. Yeah, I'm so excited about that. So many of the people who I hugely respect in this industry, you being one, Megan, have had these real lows where you question what you're doing and you feel betrayed by so many. And it's actually the strength of the audience, the viewers that pulls you through, because that's actually who

I do this for. You know, I never did this for the billionaires who were signing my paycheck. I did it for the viewers because I believe there was such a significant gap in the market here in the UK because the media here is just hard left everywhere because we have the British bashing corporation, WOKI TV, Sly News. So I believe now that I've got to take this independent and I've got an opportunity to do it. I know it's not going to be easy, but I'm super excited now. And I do feel like I'm on my feet. You're a pioneer. And Russell Brand, I forgot to mention him. Even though I had my problems with him, I love that he's out there speaking. No world would ever want to see his platform taken away from him based on allegations that are so old and all that stuff.

So he's also out there making news every day. Okay. Johnny Depp, the audience may not be aware, but he sued you. He sued you for reporting you did on the Amber Heard allegations against him. And the audience may remember before he brought his defamation case against her here domestically, he started in the UK and Dan was on the receiving end of that. And there Johnny Depp did not prevail. And then he came over here and he did prevail. It usually goes the other way because in the UK, it's easier to prove defamation than it is here in the United States, especially when there's a public figure involved. But you were in kind of an interesting spot there because, you know, I don't know, maybe some people normally would have expected you to kind of take his side, but you were much more like Amber Heard is brave. And, you know, I stand by

my reporting that he was an alleged abuser. And now you say you want to issue an apology to him. Why? Yeah, so it was interesting. The court case in the UK, even though Amber was giving evidence, it was actually me who was being sued. So she was giving evidence to support our case because she knew if she won here, that would help her case in the US, although that didn't end up happening. Now, I want to be really clear that what I'm about to say is not designed in any way to pile more heartache or difficulties onto Amber Heard. Remember, she didn't want to be in court either,gan it was johnny who decided to take the case

against me in the uk and her in the us but what i do want to do is apologize to johnny for ever getting involved in the ins and outs of his personal and clearly very toxic relationship i have now seen megan and we've spoken about it during the first hour, just what can happen when an ex has such an ax to grind, is so actuated by malice that they will make up terrible things designed to destroy your career and destroy your life. Now, by the way, I'm not saying that that's what Amber did, but we don't know, do we? And it was wrong for me to get involved. Of course, the judge in the UK made a different decision.

So I think you could say it was a split decision. But it wasn't my role to get involved. If Amber believed there had been abuse in that relationship, there was a criminal process she could have gone through, and there was a legal process that she could have gone through. I think the problem is I got involved in the carnival of commentary. And actually, it was in a really unwitting way, Megan, because my column wasn't even about Johnny Depp. It was actually about J.K. Rowling. You know, I absolutely love J.K. Rowling now.

She's one of my heroes because she stands up for biological sex and she's taken on the woke mob. But at the time, do you remember she was leading the charge in the Me Too movement and saying that all women should be believed, all women should be believed no matter what. She was. But then she didn't sign up to that when it came to Johnny Depp. So I was calling out, actually, my column was about calling out the hypocrisy of J.K. Rowling. Then unfortunately, and this does happen on newspaper websites, a headline was put on the column that described Johnny Depp as a wife beater. That was never written by me. It didn't appear in the print newspaper. But you can imagine all hell broke loose as a result of that. But I think one of the big issues that we have now, Megan, in the culture war is that so often we dig deep into our trenches. We don't take a moment to look back at what we've done and think, actually, was that a mistake? And I guess I've

had the time to do that over the past six months. And I've thought a lot about it. And I do think I was wrong to ever get involved. I don't think it was my business. And I think all I did was add extra heartache to what was clearly a very troubled, very toxic relationship. Do I think Johnny Depp is a perfect guy? Absolutely not. I don't think even he would argue that. No, but I just look, I have lots of regrets over that. And I don't think enough journalists talk about their regrets sometimes.

So, yeah, I was definitely wrong. It's something I wish that I hadn't done, even though I would defend myself and saying it was very unwitty. Do you know what I mean? I wasn't expecting to become the guy to go against Johnny Depp at all. But I think now I know that you cannot just trust the word of an ex. You can't because some exes, because I now know from personal experience, my ex was prepared to do anything to destroy me, Megan, anything. Going to the police, making up stories, posting on X, he was prepared to do anything. So I just feel like when relationships like this go wrong,

it should be down to law enforcement to make the decision, not social media and not the media itself. So I was definitely wrong on that. Well, Dan, I appreciate you saying that. I feel the same. I'm constantly looking back at my own positions and asking, how could I do better? What do I know now that would change my opinions? And I really encourage everybody to do that because if you just stick with, I'm right today and I've always been right, then if you were wrong yesterday and you're wrong today, you never have any chance of being right tomorrow. You know, that's just the way it is. So self-reflection, introspection, and a lot of humility will go a long way for every human

journalist or not in assessing their positions in this crazy world that we find ourselves in, especially with media. So just join in. And the thing with Johnny, and I think this is where now I understand where he was coming from in a way where maybe I didn't before, is the reason that he decided to bring the cases, Megan, is because he felt like his career had been unfairly taken away from him because the Hollywood studios would no longer book him for the big movies. And obviously there's a lot of similarities to me in that position. I feel like my career was unfairly taken away from me based on total lies. And so even though everyone's telling you, because everyone's telling me now, Dan, you've got this wonderful life. You've got the best

partner. You've got an amazing family. You know who your true friends are. Why on earth would you want to carry this on? But the problem is you sort of have this overwhelming desire to clear your name because you know that what's being said about you just isn't true. And I think that's why Johnny pursued the court case, even though at the time I thought it was a real mistake. And I guess after the UK result, you could argue that it was a mistake, but obviously he out the way they're supposed to. And sometimes we, at some level, bring these things upon ourselves because we know we have a lesson to learn. You know, I think back even on my own time before my cancellation, my very public cancellation, sort of at Fox. I mean, I wasn't canceled by Fox. They offered me a big deal to stay,

but many on the right were very angry with me. Some remain angry with me or a core MAGA can't forgive me for the question I asked of Trump. I ask for no forgiveness. I stand by my questioning 100%. But certainly then what happened at NBC, I think to myself, did I need to be knocked down? You know, was I getting too full of hubris or, you know, too confident or, you know, not humility, not, not full of enough humility to where I was questioning my positions and leaving room for the idea that I wasn't right about everything, you know, or that I should just be a little bit more generous toward others in the way I approach the news. And I do sort of think that's one of my takeaways. When I emerged after all of that, I came out more humble and I am definitely different

than I was back in 2016 and for the better. But you don't get there without being really honest with yourself and owning your mistakes, Dan. So kudos to you. I mean, it is a brutal experience. Jordan Peterson says that cancellation, really the only thing that's worse than cancellation, according to Jordan Peterson is, is receiving a fatal diagnosis. And I understand what he means because it touches every single part of your life. And it's amazing, Megan, and I'm sure you found this, how many people run. They run at the first sign of trouble. And I think the great thing is now is I know that the people who I have around me, and obviously there's a lot fewer people there than there was last June, but I know they're going to be with me through anything. And that matters.

They're the best people, the ones who stay with you. It's funny because I never thought like, who's, who's wanting to go out with me or have cocktails or stay in touch with me when I was on Fox or NBC, because I'm on TV. I never really even considered it. You know, I just sort of take people at their word and you go forward or you don't, you connect or you don't. But when they fell away, you know, after I was quote canceled, then you have a time, you know, like a period of months where you're like, Oh, Oh, that was fake. Oh, that person was really just about, you know, wanting to bathe in my reflective light. And that's wonderful to weed those people out of your life. That's another gift in a way you give to yourself in the cancellation process.

Everyone should be canceled at least once in their life. Highly recommend, although perhaps not as publicly and traumatically as Dan and I have been. Okay. Let's get to the news of the day, because I've been dying to hear from you in particular on Kate Middleton. What in God's name is going on there, Dan? Oh my goodness, where do I start? Well, firstly, I think I'd put a little bit of background to it and say there's been lots of changes behind the scenes in William and Kate's team, very small team who look after these two people. And I don't think it's working is the first thing that I would say whatever you think about whether people are being too tough on Kate for posting the photo or not it's just not working at the moment it was a little bit amateur hour whereas previously

you'll remember that when there was the big battle going on with Charles versus Harry and Meghan versus William and Kate, they had these slick and amazing PR teams and they were almost treating each other like Hollywood stars. And it was a big battle. And I've tried to move away from that. And I think it backfired. But what I would say, Meghan, and I know this, Kate is very unwell. She is physically unwell. So there should surely be a little bit of sympathy towards her. And I'm really not seeing much of that online. And I think people are loving it just a little bit too much. Now, of course, there are lots of questions to ask about transparency. And one of the things I'm most excited about, Megan, in terms of being independent, is I can now report on the royal

family without having overlords who are really scared to do that. So what you will find in the UK is that the newspapers essentially act as stenographers or PR operatives on behalf of the royal family. Now, I don't think that's right. We pay these guys salaries. They deserve scrutiny. So for example, you know, the photo of Kate looking not well in the car next to her mum, Carol, which was published by TMZ in the US. Not one UK newspaper published that picture. Now, that's a little bit weird, isn't it? That's a little bit weird. She's a public figure. She was out in public. Why would they not publish the picture? At the same time, Kate is not well at the moment. There are reasons why she doesn't want to appear in public. I think turning it into an international meme is just a little bit mean. And I especially want to

call out Harry and Meghan's team, who used this as an opportunity to brief to their favorite journalists at the New York Post that, oh, this is not a mistake that Meghan would ever have made. I'm sorry. Have you seen the pictures, Meghan, of Prince Harry, the official pictures of Prince Harry with Meghan, where all of a sudden he has a full head of hair? So do not tell me, do not tell me that Harry and Meghan do not Photoshop their photos. They do. And in some ways, is there not something quite sweet about the fact that Kate is just like the rest of us? You know, she's there on a little mobile phone using one of those dodgy apps. No, I don't believe that. But that's what I don't believe that. And I think a lot of people don't.

I don't believe she even sat for that picture. I don't think that's, I don't think that's a real picture that she just edited. Yes, I think it's an amalgamation of other shots involving the family. I don't know exactly how she did it. But look, there's that one picture we've seen of Kate that you just referenced that TMZ put out like two weeks ago, it was the beginning of March. And she's in the passenger seat over in the UK, that would be our normal driver's seat. And her mom is driving the car and she looks puffy. Her face looks round and it's usually very angular and awesome, but she looks puffy. Like, like something's wrong. Like she had, you know, I mean, I think about when I just had my kids, I got super swelled up like a, like a tick and I was puffy all over. That's just how, how she looked to me. And there's no way this picture that they put out two weeks later is present day. I don't believe it. She's got all the angles back. We played yesterday how it's identical to the shot that was on the cover of

British Vogue. I mean, identical. And there's all sorts of theories about how they did it, but I don't personally, my own personal belief is she did not sit for that photo. And the real question is how unwell is she that she can't sit for a photo with her three children that she would control, that she could Photoshop, that she could cover up herself with? Something's going on. Well, something is going on. I mean, something very much is going on. She's not well. But in terms of the photo, I'm not sure I agree. It certainly wasn't the Vogue magazine cover. That's been debunked. And the kids do look older. The kids do look older from when they've previously been seen. But I think where Kate and William, to be honest, and you

know I'm fans of both of them, Megan, but where they've been incredibly naive is this is 2024. You can't just disappear for four months, Kate. You just can't, especially not when the king, who is battling very serious cancer, is still out there being seen, meeting with the prime minister, attending church. So I think there is a real naivety about the management behind the scenes of the royal family. And sometimes this is when you need a strong courtier. And we've spoken a lot about the courtiers, Megan, in terms of Harry and Megan. And they were all at war and Harry hated all of William's courtiers. But they were strong people and they would stand up to the royal family and they'd tell them what

they needed to do sometimes. The problem is now, Kate saying, I'm not going to be seen for four months just doesn't fly. This is the world of social media. And I think what's fascinating to me, and again, it sort of ties into where I'm going, is that the newspapers don't control the narrative anymore. The newspapers are dying. So the newspapers might be doing this PR job for Kate and saying, leave her alone. But the problem is that's not what the rest of the world is saying. That's not what the internet is saying. She's too big a star. There are armchair investigators all across the world looking at this now. I mean, for all six news agencies to pull that photo within hours of it hitting showed how, how much of an amateurish job it was done. And I'm telling you, Dan, I've got my own suspicions. I know you've got sources and so on, but I'm not in that

position, but there's no way like when you Photoshop a photo, honestly, for me, the most I'll do is like change the, the setting on it. You know, you can do like add light or put it on dramatic or whatever, you know, you can do like, I'll do that sometimes just to make it look a little prettier, but I've never done filters. I've never done anything like that. And I've certainly never done anything where like I changed the kid's sweater to where the arm doesn't fit anymore. Like that thing is heavily manipulated. And the question is why I don't believe she sat for a photo with the three children. I think it's because you're saying she's unwell, but here's the question the audience is going to wonder how unwell, you know, because as you know, forgive me, there are people online who believe she may, she may no longer be with us. And I realized that's absurd conspiracy stuff.

Look, I can absolutely tell you a lie. She's alive. There are reasons why she doesn't want to appear in public that are to do with physical appearance. I think what I would say though, and I'm not trying to undermine at all what's going on, because I would argue the royal family is in arguably its biggest crisis in a generation. I mean, look at everything that's happened since the death of the late queen 18 months ago. I mean, this is a disaster. There's just been a suicide, a really grim suicide in the royal family as well. Who is that guy? Can you explain who that guy is, Dan? Yeah, of course. He was the husband of William's cousin. But someone who was close to William,

William was at the funeral. And again, there's lots of reasons behind why he shot himself in the head, but I'm just trying to paint a picture of things are really difficult within the royal family at the moment. Charles has obviously wanted this job for his entire life and he has been struck down. There's a real cruel irony to that. Camilla's not particularly well. Kate is very unwell. And so there's a lot resting on the shoulders of Prince William at the moment. I guess what I'm certainly going to be thinking about and having conversations about is what level of privacy people like Kate are entitled to, because the newspapers in the UK had always made a decision that they do have a right to privacy. And you've got to remember, I mean,

the late Queen was literally dying of blood cancer, Megan, and no one was told. We all knew, but we didn't report it out of respect to her. And her death certificate said she died of old age. Prince Philip had battled cancer for years and years and years. But of course, there's a great contrast in Charles being this much more modern king and very open about what he's going through compared to Kate. But I just think sometimes what you've got to think about, Megan, is there are personal health issues which can be embarrassing to discuss that you don't want the whole world knowing. And does Kate deserve that humiliation? Isn't it her choice if she wants to share it or not? Obviously, there's a real track record in

the royal family of some members opening up about their health, Diana and Fergie being examples of that. Others, the Queen, the late Queen and Prince Philip have kept it secret. So, look, I think there's questions about this. But what certainly is undeniable is that the royal family is in the midst of a PR crisis. There's literally no one there to do the work. And Harry and Meghan are trying to capitalize on that. But if you think William is going to allow them back in to take a prominent role, because you know they're already positioning themselves to try and ride back in as some sort of savior for the royal family. Let me tell you, Meghan, it ain't happening.

William's just not going to allow it. When Harry flew over to be with King Charles, he stayed for less than 24 hours. It was, he didn't even see Prince William. It was, you know, pretty clear that. Charles didn't want to spend any time with him. Charles did not want to spend the time with Harry. And what does that tell you? So can I just ask one other question?

There's something quite grievous here about, about flying over once your dad's got cancer. Oh, he made it all about himself, just like one other question. There's something quite grievous about flying over once your dad's got cancer. Oh, he made it all about himself, just like they always do. But wait, quick question before we go. Do you believe, based on what you know, that Kate Middleton is going to be okay? Yes. Okay. Yeah.

Well, that's good to hear. And I have one other question that my husband, Doug, and I were discussing this morning. Why is she still referred to as Kate Middleton? Isn't she now Kate Windsor? Well, she hates it. She hates it. And I'm guilty of it. So she believes that she should only be referred to as Catherine now or the Princess of Wales. But again, I find that difficult. I mean, she's Kate, isn't she? We grew up with her as Kate, but no, she hates being called Kate. And of course, the poor woman has had to deal with her uncle. I love her uncle, Megan. He used to come on my show,

Gary Goldsmith, but he just went on a big reality show. Yes, we covered that. Yeah, I was listening to you the other day. I'm into this guy. He calls himself the Bunkle, short for bad uncle. Yeah. And it's just like, oh my goodness, Kate will be thinking, I don't need this. So look, it's not a good time for the world. I'm going to switch to Catherine. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to stop speculating about her health because she's one of the biggest stars

in the world, one of the most famous people in the world. And that's the downside to it. And I'm sorry, but I do wish her well. And I'm going to try to call her Catherine from now on. I think her name is Catherine Windsor. After the marriage, she's technically Catherine Mountbatten Windsor unless she kept Middleton, which I don't think she did.

No, no, no, she didn't. All right, Dan, I got to go. I am thrilled to see you again and I can't wait for the next chapter. Make sure you check out Dan. Substack at Dan Wooden Outspoken. Is it in my prompter? Spell your last name, Dan.

Yeah, so it's W-O-O-T-T-O-N. So danwoodenoutspoken.com or you can search me on Twitter and YouTube and all of those apps. Okay. Because the show is coming soon. I need to have you on, Megan, of course. Any time.

Consider it done. Thank you so much. All right. Lots of love and lots of luck. Okay. Don't go away. We've got much, of course. Any time. Consider it done. Thank you so much. All right. Lots of love and lots of luck. Okay. Don't go away. We've got much, much more. I'm Megan Kelly,

host of The Megan Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megan Kelly Show

on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream the Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free.

Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. Are you one of those parents racing from soccer practice to ballet to SAT prep every day? Here's your sign that you should probably stop. A new book called Family Unfriendly, How Our Culture Made Raising Kids Much Harder Than It Needs to Be. It's shining a light on the dangers of overscheduling and overworking our children. And it's out next week, available right now for pre-order. I think you'll find it absolutely fascinating and a very fast and fascinating read. Bestselling author and Washington Examiner columnist Timothy Carney joins me now. Tim, welcome to the show.

Hey, thank you for having me. Thank you for writing this book. This, you know, I've told the story before, but Steve Forbes's wife, I saw her when I was about eight months pregnant with my first child and she's got, I don't know, like eight children. I can't remember. It's a big number. And I was like, so what do you, you know, any, any advice, whatever. And she said, uh, read nothing, go on instinct. And, and honestly, that was largely correct. But what I love about this book is it kind of takes what I think is most people's instinct, puts it on paper and reassures them that they're right to not listen to the nonsense that's being written everywhere and the conventional wisdom

that has developed that junior needs to be in 10 different clubs and three different sports and getting A's and A pluses in order to have any sort of a future ahead of him or her at all. That's really what you're trying to get to. Absolutely. If you, if you feel guilty that you're not running around like the biggest tiger mom in the world, the main thing you're doing wrong is feeling guilty about it. And I saw three things going on. I'm a journalist. I go around the country.

I study the social science. Three phenomena that were happening. One is a falling birth rate. Two is record high childhood anxiety. And three, a ton of parents being much more stressed than our parents were. And so I thought, okay, we're going to figure out what's behind it. And some people just said it's economics, but that argument doesn't quite work. And I, in the book, I walk through the economics, how it does and doesn't add to stress and lower the birth rate.

Really, it's about our culture. That's why the subtitle is about our culture making raising kids much harder than it needs to be. The helicopter culture, the over-ambitious parenting culture, the effect that technology has on our culture, even mating and dating culture, as well as the values of our culture. They're all adding to these three problems of childhood anxiety, parental stress, and a falling birth rate. I know this on an instinctive level. I think a lot of parents do. As I said, I was thinking about just the other day, a conversation we had in our family and my kids, they're not yet in high school, but they're saying, what'd you get on the SAT? I said, I'm embarrassed to tell you. But then we started laughing. I did

average. That's how I did in the SAT. And we started laughing. I'm like, you know what? All I really cared about in high school was having friends, having a boyfriend, and enjoying myself. You know what, Tim? It worked out just fine. And I joke with my mom to this day. She swears that I did not play freshman field hockey at my school. And I was on the team.

I was on the team the whole season. And I was not bad. And she's like, you lie. You would, did not do freshman field. I'm like, mom, I had to get the yearbook photo to prove to my mother. I did this. Why? Because she was the opposite of a helicopter. She had no idea what I was doing. And I turned out well, not despite all that, but I think you make a pretty good argument because of it, at least in part. Exactly.

And so one of the worst things I encountered in researching this book was sociologists saying, well, families are shrinking because parents are choosing quality over quantity. Now, this bugged me, first of all, because my wife and I, we have six kids and I don't think we're sacrificing quality. But we are if you use their definition of quality, which is heavy investment in every kid. Now, if by investment, you mean, you know, total love, unconditional love and willingness to sort of give up your lives for your kids. Yes, we invest everything in our kids. But if you mean tutors, tons of extracurriculars, travel sports,

no, we don't do that at all. In fact, in the book, I talk about missing some of my son's baseball games basically on purpose. I love baseball. And when we pull them off of the travel team, so we should talk about that. When we pull them off of the travel team and put them on the local rec team, it was the most fun he or we had at all. But also, we didn't feel we had to be there. We didn't feel we have to watch every single moment because the point of baseball isn't going to just be that, you know, we can be there if he gets a game-winning RBI or we're going to build him up to be a D1 athlete,

but that it's fun. And if I wanted to be walking in the woods with my other kids, that's just as good a time. Or you know what? At one of his best games ever, I just said, I need to get some rest. And I went to bed early and he came home screaming about how great it was. And it was fine that we missed it. The idea that you have to be hovering over your kids, either to see their every accomplishment or to protect them from imaginary evils.

These are the things that are just making parenting so hard. And they trickle down through the media. They trickle down through just expectations in the culture. And some of these things happen because people have fewer kids. They have fewer kids. And so they helicopter a lot more. Can you tell me the travel team story? That sounds interesting. So this is actually chapter one of the book starts.

Well, we let our son try out for travel sports. It was a mistake. I think I only did it because I thought he wouldn't make the team, but then he makes a team and they say, and this is baseball and they say, uh, January indoor practices for 12 year olds. Okay. The baseball supposed to start in the spring, not in January, 12 year olds shouldn't need these intensive practices. But the most important thing was the first thing the coach said to my boy says to the whole team, baseball isn't fun. Winning baseball is fun to 12-year-olds.

And so they go ahead and they're not very good. They're coming off of a COVID lockdown. A lot of them hadn't played. And the coach starts yelling at them, not for being lazy or anything, but just for dropping balls. And it was absolutely amazing to me that these parents, these coaches, these adults had forgotten the point of youth sports. And then I realized that the travel team trap is endemic. It's all over. Sometimes it's overambitious parents. Sometimes it's parents who just say, oh, I want the best quality competition for my kids. That's a good instinct. But then they're spending weekends at tournaments in Delaware. Their kids are starting to associate

their own value with how they do in the sports. And so I looked at the studies, physiologically, not surprising, a lot more injuries for kids who specialize. You throw out your arm if you're pitching nine months a year. You bust your knee if you're playing basketball 10 months a year. But more importantly, these kids were sadder. They had a lower estimation of their own worth, of their own athletic ability if they were specializing. Why? Because they kept climbing the ladder and then suddenly they look around, they realize, wait, I've dedicated my life to being the best shortstop in my county and I'm the 20th best just in my county, in my own age group. And for kids to fail is actually good, but for kids to fail at something to which they've staked their value as an individual is horrible. And that's what parents do when they invest so much,

even in the academics, which is the most important, even in that, if the parents invest everything in the kids' sports or academics or violin, then the kids start to think that their value is in their success in those things. And we just have to reject that and make sure that parents are showing kids your value is infinite and it's totally independent of what you might accomplish in this world. Yes, I love all of this. It's like you try to raise your kid. I definitely see parents who are trying to get either a do-over through their kids or just to build up their own egos through their kids.

Like the kid getting into the right Ivy is a positive reflection on them or being captain of the whatever team is a reflection on that. As opposed to here's a person that my spouse and I have brought into this world who we just want to love and nurture and create the right values within, and then let him or her flourish in whatever way makes sense for them. It doesn't reflect on me at all. We have to live our own lives. We have to achieve our own, we have to stroke our own egos, not do it through our children. Well, and some children, some parents will end up in the overambitious parenting, the travel team trap through almost no fault of their own, except like us, you sort of weren't paying attention. Some parents just say, I want to put my kid in Little League, but all the good players are playing travel baseball and so nobody can throw a strike.

Some parents told me, well, I just wanted him to have a chance to make the JV squad. And the coach just said, we don't even consider you unless you're playing on our travel squad. And that's part of why I call it a trap. You don't have to be a parent with all your priorities out of order to fall into this. And it's the same with helicoptering. I know parents in our neighborhood who have said they're so glad that our kids play on the front yard because they've been shamed for letting their kids wander around the neighborhood by somebody who says, well, you know, anything could happen. And so there's the people who wrongly believe there's kidnappers, skilled kidnappers around

every corner. But then there's people who say, I don't want to be shunned by my neighbors. And so I'm going to put the leash on my kids as well. And so a lot of the culture just makes it harder for parents to make the right choice for their children. And the right choice is often more freedom, more pickup basketball, and less travel basketball. As you're saying, the instincts that most parents have are right, and the culture is dragging them away. The book is called Family Unfriendly. It's by Tim Carney. You can pre-order right now. Let's help Tim get up on the New York Times bestseller list so it can stay in the rotation of how to raise a well child because his kids are coming up along our kids. And if we can fight back against this cultural madness, we want to. I've noticed is if you don't schedule your kids afternoon, they're not going to be doing anything

because, and that's fine. I mean, like they can hang out and read or whatever, but they're not going to be playing with a friend because everyone's child is in something. No one's ever, ever available. Like everybody's always in a, this sport or this tutoring or this extra school afterschool activity. Like it's not like when we were kids, when my main memories are exploring the woods by myself in Syracuse, New York in the single digits, like talk about abduction territory. Like if you wanted your kid to be abducted, that'd be a good place to put her. We're the same generation. Our parents said the most common phrase I heard was, okay, just be home when the streetlights come on.

Or if you want to eat, be home by dinnertime was a lot of what I was told. And sometimes we got lost and we didn't get home for dinnertime. I remember once having to stop by the local reverend's house to be like, yeah, we got lost. We just got back into town. My parents aren't giving me dinner. Do you have any leftovers? This was, you know, and our parents weren't doing it wrong. And but again, the cultural expectations on this. And it's so that's why you really have to be countercultural and you really do have

to lead. And that's one of the things I'm trying to establish, accomplish with this book is saying, OK, you have to be the first parent to just let your kid wander the neighborhood and then communicate loudly. Hey, we're letting our kids wander the neighborhood. It will be more fun if you guys do it. And we promise it will be fun. And you know, one place- They're free many days. Like let the other parents know these are the days that they don't have anything going on and would love to just play. Even the older kids, of course, most people do

this, but they're young ones, like schedule play dates so that they can hang out. But as they get older, we just keep filling their days with more activities. And that is actually damaging. It is. And so the we've recently had the American Journal of Pediatrics ran an op ed saying that the number one cause of the rise in childhood anxiety is the lack of independent play free from supervision by adults. But another reason that adults overschedule their kids is because one parent just said, well, my favorite thing about travel sports is it's the only thing that gets my daughter off of social media and off of her smartphone. And so this is another place that parents need support.

And I always talk about support and culture because sometimes a conservative like me thinks, OK, the whole thing is about nuclear family. Good parents can protect you from bad things. But it's so much harder to keep your kids off social media if all of their friends are using it. And so what do we do? We get together since you talked about a do over. When you have six kids, you get a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth chance. And with our younger children, we get together with their friends, parents as early as possible and say, we are never giving these girls cell phones. We are never giving these boys smartphones. They might get a dumb phone to text with, but you don't have to do it either. You'll probably regret it if you do it.

And guess what? Building that support, having schools that don't allow the phones in school, that's all the community support, the cultural support that parents need to keep their kids off of the social media. I love that you say in the book, hold on, I wrote it down. This is the pork shoulder analogy. Raising kids is a bit like smoking pork shoulder. It's not going to be quick and you do need to check the thermometer from time to time, but you'll get the best outcome if you avoid constantly lifting the lid and prodding the meat. And I'm glad you said that. I need to remember that too. I'm just remembering this morning, I was prodding my son a little too much. It's easy to fall into that trap. But again, kids need independence and even boredom. Boredom can be a good thing. But again, just sort of making up your own games as you're running around the neighborhood, that's really good for their health. And there's a lot of reasons I think our culture doesn't like that. Part of it is, again,

with fewer kids, parents are more likely to think I can accomplish their outcome. But a lot of it is the secularization of our culture, Megan, where people, the only thing that they see as having value is worldly success. And what they see as the point of raising kids is getting them into Harvard or Dartmouth or Princeton. While if you take a supernatural approach and an approach of most religions, you would think, okay, this child is made in the image of God. I'm going to raise them and love them and they have value no matter what. And so in a world that doesn't have as much God in it, we're much more likely to have this materialistic view of parenting, which leads to the overambitious parenting. That is so true. And you spent some time on that talking about how

basically the only people who are still having children are the religious ones. I overstayed it, but the more religious you are, the more likely that you are to have some more children. And I don't think it's about the great homilies, about the value of children. Sorry to any of my pastors who have given great homilies. And it's not even specifically about the church teaching. It's mostly about the fact that church communities, they build sort of institutions of civil society. They give you a place to bring your kids. They give you role models. If you go to church, there's somebody 10 years older than you who has three kids and you think, oh, I can do that. I remember sitting behind a pew of a family with six kids thinking when we had just a baby, and I thought, I can't imagine how I can do that, but I know I can because that's just a normal guy.

That's where we got our babysitters from. And then finally, just realigning your values and realigning your values from the worldly to the idea that you're going to love other people. One way I put it is, well, the Bible tells us to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. I have hungry, naked people in my house when I wake up in the morning. They're right there for me. And so the religious communities, it's not just so that they're preaching, be fruitful and multiply. That was God's first commandment in the Bible.

But it's more that it builds that community that parents need to support them and to give them sanity, to give them mentoring, to give them camaraderie. Well, not only that, but we do need additional humans. It's important. You know, we played the soundbite a few weeks ago of Joy Reid not understanding why it's a bad thing that we're not reproducing at the rates that we used to. Like, what do we need more people for, basically? There are real reasons why we need more people and we need to get the birth rate up. There are now what you have in the book,

something like there are more people in their 60s than there are babies being born. Yeah, the more Americans in their 60s than there are under age 10. There are fewer children in America today than there were at the last census. So what does this mean in 20 years? It means a working age population will flatline. And that's going to be bad. Maybe artificial intelligence can replace it, but I don't necessarily want Google Gemini fixing my leaky pipes in my house. We're going to need people. Your pipes are going to start telling you how racist you are. Exactly. And I think just babies make the world happier. That's what I believe. That's my experience. And I do wrangle up social science data. It's kind of funny that you need to do that,

but that's sort of our habit here in DC in the journalism and think tank world is let's get the stats to prove it. And at one point I realized what I was trying to prove was that when babies are around, more people smile and are happy. That's pretty self-evident, but somehow we've kind of forgotten that. And Joy Reid can ask, why do we need more babies? No, these morons are like, climate change, it would be irresponsible to have a child. Okay, fine. You know, those people maybe shouldn't reproduce. It's fine. We'll be okay without them having more children. Back to the stats, you did have an interesting one in here, and it was about the burnout rate of kids who were overtaxing with athletics, with these incredible athletic

demands at a young age. The quit rate is 70% across all youth sports, and burnout is a plague among young athletes. You go on to quote Adam Silver, who runs the NBA, saying, we're seeing a rash of injuries among young players. What our orthopedics are telling us, he said, is that they're seeing wear and tear issues in young players that they didn't order to make sure he's the best. The odds of your child lasting past, what, seventh grade, if that's what you do to him, are extremely slim. Yeah, that's my final argument to would-be travel team obsessive parent. Not that there's anything wrong with the travel team, but specializers who think the point of youth sports is excellence. My final argument is it doesn't work. You've got the injury threat there.

And then as an athletic director, I quote in the book saying, some other kid who's more naturally athletic is just going to pick up the sport at age 14 and beat your son for the starting job. So if you invested age 7 through 14 for him being the high school starting catcher, some other guy is going to be like, hey, baseball, that might be fun. Jacob deGrom, great Mets pitcher, he didn't pitch until he was halfway through college. The U.S. goalie in the soccer team in the last World Cup, he didn't even start playing soccer until partway into high school. And so it's not going to work.

And so if you're not going to believe me that, well, it disrupts a family culture and it's not good for their mental health, at least realize you're not actually going to make your kid be Serena Williams by putting them through this gamut. Roger Federer played soccer before he turned to tennis. This crazy, fake, curated life of motherhood that's all over Instagram, that's causing anxiety amongst parents and moms in particular. What do you make of it? So there's two different sides of it. One is the parenting is just hell Instagram and that gets TikTok. Those are really popular. But the other side is here's how wonderful parenting can be if you're exactly perfect like me. If you're a ballerina who lives in a farm and, oh, look how this shot,

it's just, it's so spontaneous and our kids are in their socks in the front yard. And obviously, it's a professional photographer. It was staged. This is what they do professionally. That causes the sociologists use the term social comparison. Women look at that and it's mostly women who fall into this trap. Women look at that and say, I can't be that sort of a mother. So maybe I just not up to raising children. And it adds to the anxiety and it makes more women just feel, well, I don't think I can pull it off. You can't because it's fake and no one's pulling that off.

And that's one of the points Tim makes in his book. Again, it's called Family Unfriendly. It's by Tim Carney. Order it now. You'll be glad you did. Tim, all the best. Thank you for writing this book. Thank you so much for having me on, Megan.

And don't forget to tune in tomorrow because the Ruthless Fellas are back with us. And gosh, do we have a lot of news. Plus, we might have a decision in the Fannie Willis case. The judge said two weeks. That would be by Friday. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.