The Megyn Kelly Show - Prince Harry Blames the Press, and Golden Globes Attempts Cultural Rehab, with Dan Wootton and Andrew Klavan | Ep. 469

Episode Date: January 11, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show, to talk about the Golden Globes attempting cultural rehab last night, Eddie Murphy's hilarious Will Smith joke, racism of the left, Top Gun getting shut out, Harry and Meghan and the "professional wrestling" of documentaries, Gwen Stefani facing backlash over saying "I'm Japanese," the greatness of cultural appropriation, Ellen DeGeneres' climate change commentary, major FAA issues, and more. Then Dan Wootton, host on GB News and Daily Mail columnist, joins to talk about Prince Harry blaming the press for fallout from his book, the truth about why Harry and Meghan Markle left England, how Wootton broke the Megxit story, Harry's claims about whether Buckingham Palace worked with the press against him, Harry's deep hatred of his brother Prince William, Harry trying to diminish William before he becomes King, the relationship between Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle, Whether Meghan actually wrote some of Harry's book, what the Queen would think of the book, and more.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, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Happy Thursday. It's Thursday, right? No, it's Wednesday. Who the hell can keep track? I don't know. I love Wednesdays. Can I tell you why? Because our schools are on hour delay every Wednesday. It's like a hangover thing from COVID and they decided to keep it. And it's so delightful. That's why I'm all discombobulated because then I don't know what day it is because I was like, I woke up late. Who am I? But it's wonderful and highly recommended if your school's not doing it. It's like an extra hour of sleep for everybody involved. And you don't feel like you lost

anything. You just get there. You can just get through Monday, Tuesday. You got Wednesday, then Friday's right around the corner. Boom, Bob's your uncle. Okay, here's what's in the news today. Prince Harry's book has been out for a day now. We actually took the time to read the whole thing, so you don't have to. Dan Wooden did it too. He's coming up later with his thoughts. He gets attacked personally by the prince in his memoir in Dan's Got Thoughts. But we begin today with the Golden Globes, which took place last night. A Tuesday night for an award show seems like an admission that they knew no one was really going to watch anyway, and they haven't been. Last year they canceled it for all sorts of reasons.

The year before that was record low in ratings. Eddie Murphy was there. He was funny, as always. And the host, Gerard Carmichael, well, we'll show you. There's no one I'd rather discuss all of these events with than Andrew Klavan. He's a best-selling author, screenwriter, and host of The Andrew Klavan Show. And he's here with us today. Andrew, great to see you. How are you? Good to see you, too, Megan. Happy New Year. And to you. All right. So we'll start with the Golden Globes, and then we'll get to what's happening with the FAA. It was just disaster. But I'm interested in the Golden Globes because it's always sort of a cultural touchstone on where we are after being entirely canceled because they weren't woke enough. They didn't have any black people in the hollywood foreign press association by various movies and producers for their votes shocker it wasn't actually legit winning uh and now they're back and supposedly they have solved all their problems and uh they

hired gerard carmichael who i confess i had never heard of prior to finding out he was hosting last night. And he comes out there with an opening monologue that really took aim at the fact that he knew very well why they hired him to do this gig. Here's just a bit, a shorter soundbite of Gerard and his opening. I am your host, Gerard Carmichael, and I'll tell you why I'm here. I'm here because I'm black. The Golden Globe Awards did not air last year because the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which I won't say they were a racist organization, but they didn't have a single black member until George Floyd died. So do with that information what you will. One minute, you're making mint tea at home. The next, you're invited to be the black-faced, in-battle white organization.

It's a great opportunity. Thank you for the call. But I'm only being asked to host this, I know, because I'm black. It's not about the money, honestly. It's about the moral question of whether I should allow. And she said, Gerard, enough all that. How much are they paying you? And I said, $500,000. And she said, boy, if you don't put on a good suit and take them white people money.

So, Andrew, I got to say, good for him for just putting it on the line. I'm sure that's true. And I give him credit for not being like I, you know, they wanted me because I'm so funny and I'm a household name. They he's exactly right. They were trying to check an identity box and rehabilitate themselves. And this is the way it now works, not just in Hollywood, but in America. Absolutely. I mean, it was, I wish he'd been a little funnier. I mean, I was honest, would have been nice if he had been a Ricky Gervais level funny. You know, the thing about this is that, you know, I've worked in Hollywood for a long time. The Hollywood Fun Press Association is famously a group of drunken, corrupt, you know, layabouts who can easily be bought.

And when they were charged with not having any black members, I thought, well, they're going to have to go out and find some drunken, corrupt black people. It's one thing to, you know, have different colored faces, but you don't want to, you know, violate the essential nature of the organization. And these awards, they do have an effect on box office and box office has been so bad this year because of streaming, but also because wokeness has destroyed Hollywood's ability to tell a good story. And so I guess they needed it back. There was really no reason to bring it back. Its ratings are incredibly low. So the whole thing just had a kind of air of desperation when he started out with the monologue. All I could think was, this is kind of funereal, you know, it's kind of like we're sitting here in this dead room talking about a dead issue.

The entire Hollywood too white thing has been a real disaster, I think. It started out with Will Smith's wife complaining because he wasn't nominated for a film called Concussion that nobody saw about football players and their injuries. And nobody cared about this movie. And there was no reason to nominate him for everything. But suddenly, this became a big problem that there weren't enough Black people winning awards, which wasn't true since 2000, about the same percentage of Black people have won Oscars and other awards, as are in the country. And so it's actually been quite fair. Hollywood really doesn't care about these things when they're giving the awards. They just want to promote the movies and make the money. And so the whole event has really

ruined it in a lot of ways, because now you feel that there are going to be quotas of how many Black people have to win awards and how many, you know, purposeful, you know, lecturing, preaching films win awards. And I just feel this has made the entire award system, which was meaningless to begin with, but now it's really meaningless because we don't really think anybody's winning for their efforts or for their abilities. So I just think that Hollywood is shooting itself in the foot. The unions out there have now made it an actual quota system where you have to bring on black writers. I know people who are bringing on black writers onto films where the writers don't do anything, which I feel is humiliating for everybody. But they just want that black face in there.

So I think the entire thing has been a kind of disaster. But as you said, quite rightly, Megan, this is happening all over the country. It's this kind of make believe, I don't know, make believe justice that has come to pass, you know our past is just a nonsense. And it really is making it difficult for people to just get along, which, in fact, in real life on the street, they mostly do. Yeah, we're doing it now in our colleges. That's why we had the lawsuit up heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this term. We expect a decision in the spring on whether they can discriminate against, for example, Asians on admissions and yet favor blacks by using race as more than just one factor. It's really the factor. But in any event, it's happening every day. Even there was a story in the news this week about how these colleges now who decided to get rid of the SAT and the ACT during COVID because, I don't know, it just was tough to study or you couldn't

get a review class, whatever, now have extended it. Some schools like University of North Carolina through 2025, no ACT, no SAT. And what they're really trying to focus on is improving their number of minority students who they believe don't do that well on standardized testing. But of course, it depends on what minority you are, right? Like Asian, no, no that does not count that's why we have the case and and what happens you know like people like glenn lowry um you could go up and down the line of scholars who have taken a hard look at affirmative action like this which is essentially what it is and said you wind up embarrassing the black student the black candidate and setting them off on a course that they didn't need to be on to succeed in life if they would just match up with a college that was actually well suited for their actual aptitude,

whatever it is, they would do better. They'd probably stay in a science or something other than black studies or gender studies or something that doesn't pay that well when you get out the other end. And yet we feel better about ourselves. They're like these people in the admissions department for doing this. You know, racism, I've always believed this. Racism makes people stupid. The minute you start talking about people in terms of race, almost anything that comes out of your mouth next is going to be idiotic. It's not just black people who, if they promoted to a college that they don't deserve to be in, are going to be made a loser.

You know, it makes it turns you into a loser because you're not as smart as everybody around you it's anybody anybody who's taken into a college for a reason other than the fact that he deserves to be there is going to turn out to be not as good as everybody around them and that's going to make you worse off in your long run life you know this thing with the asians with keeping asians out because they work hard their culture causes them to work hard they have very high iqs uh and and they come in and they take over entire universities. So they're trying to keep out. They did the same thing to the Jews when they finally let the Jews in. They said, well, we take some Jews, but not too many because then we'll have Jews all over the campus. So it's this continual, you know, race against their own hatreds and their

own small mindedness. And I have to say the thing that Republicans like to point out, that this has been endemic in the Democrat Party for most of the Democrat Party's history, is absolutely true. It is an absolutely fair attack. It's the Democrats who were fighting to keep slavery. It's the Democrats who brought in Jim Crow. It's the Democrats who brought in, you know, fought integration, the Dixiecrats, they called them. I'm just reading a biography of J. Edgar Hoover, the guy the left hates more than anything. And when FDR wanted to intern all the Japanese people during the war, Hoover was like, you can't do that. It's un-American. The FDR said, no, just put them all in a concentration camp. The Democrat Party has been rife with racism from its beginning. Woodrow Wilson, the first president ever to win, I think, a black majority, the first Democrat ever to win a black majority for president, was a virulent racist. He was the Obama of his time, and they loved him to death. He was a virulent racist. And now all they've done is switch over the racism to white people. So it's absolutely all right to go on television and say, this is a problem of whiteness and whiteness has these aspects and whiteness has these qualities. Racism makes you stupid. And it's just, you know, it would be gone. It wouldn't be gone from America because it's never going to be gone from the human heart,

but it would be gone from American society if the Democrats just didn't keep using it to get ahead. And it's really frustrating. It ruins everything. It ruins everything that the people could do. It's so true. So you mentioned Will Smith a minute ago. He was he was not up for anything last night. But and he's not I don't know if he's allowed to go to this one.

He's he's banned from the Academy Awards for 10 years. But his name did come up and it actually was pretty funny, of course, courtesy of Eddie Murphy. Listen to this. There is a definitive blueprint that you can follow to achieve success, prosperity, longevity, and peace of mind. There's a blueprint, and I followed it my whole career. It's very simple. Just do these three things. Pay your taxes.

Mind your business. And keep Will Smith's wife's name. No! It was believed because it had the F mark. Good to see humor return

to the stage. It is. It is nice. The thing is, the more and more meaningless these award ceremonies become, the better they become. Because it used to be these guys would get up and lecture you about the fact that you voted for the wrong president or you have the wrong politics. And they'd make these bold statements as if this was an important moment. It's just the movies. You know, there's nothing about these guys. These guys were blessed with their genetic jackpots. They were blessed with good looks. They were blessed with talent. They can do a thing, which is that they can pretend to be somebody else and speak words that writers wrote for them. They're not important people. And I think it's one of the problems we have in America. You know, leftism thrives wherever it doesn't have to be tested. So Hollywood is a perfect place because it's a place that lives in the imagination.

And so you can imagine leftism works there without having to test it against real life. But, you know, one of the real problems with America is there's so much unreality, so much belief in the image of things. And then we've now gotten to the point where we think we can talk our way out of, you know, realism. We can say, well, if we're just nice to criminals, they won't commit crimes. We can say our man can turn into a woman. I have to tell you, my favorite part of the Golden Globe was in the New York Times the next morning when Billy Porter was on the red carpet, an actor, and he wore a dress

on the red carpet. And the New York Times just ran it among all the other beautiful women wearing beautiful dresses on the red carpet without comment, as if it were nothing. But Porter himself said that he was trying to make a comment about red carpet fashions and masculinity. And I was thinking, I can't imagine what there is to say about red carpet fashions and masculinity, except that you have to wait for your wife to finish watching the red carpet part of the show so you can turn to something else. But I just thought that was beautiful. I'm so glad you mentioned this. We had this big debate on the show with the guys from the fifth column yesterday,

and they were against me. But I was saying, because the Nework times did this long article on dressing if you're a non-binary person at the office and ran these absurd photos of men there was a whatever i i assume that these are biological men um in little mini skirt dresses with bare legs that have been shaven with little high top white sneakers and little white, low, low, like white socks and their man hair and their man, like in some cases, man beards with women's. I'm like, no, no, you work at my company. You may not dress like that. You can choose a lane. You can be a man who wants to dress like a woman. That's fine. You can be a woman who wants to dress like a man. No problem. You are not coming to my office with a beard and a woman's wig and a woman's dress and your man legs. That's not happening. I'm not pretending that two genders can exist in the same

person at one. No, you can work out your issues on your own time. You can work here, but you can't dress like that because dress codes have been enforced as legal by the Supreme Court. See, this kind of this kind of hateful talk, Megan, I'm just ashamed of you now. I mean, like, you know, today, the New York Times ran an article about a trans man who had a baby, and he had a baby. And I thought, you know, I don't know, I'm sorry, that just seems inexact language to me, you know? When you give birth, you are a woman, you know? There's no question about it. That almost is a defining moment, I think, in womanhood that you give birth. And I think that you just have to take the pronoun.

You have to bite on that pronoun. It makes America stupid to not be able to talk about these things in a real way. I mean, it makes you stupid when people are afraid that if they say anything, they're going to be called hateful. You say, well, actually, you know, I don't think Rachel Levine is a woman. And they actually excoriate you for that. How can you discuss anything? How can you get people to have to make their points to make sense, to exhibit some kind of logical thinking?

If the minute you say anything, you're deemed hateful. It is making us idiots. It is turning people into idiots. And the only thing that's great about it is the New York Times has become a laugh riot. And I think that's making my life better. They want us to engage in this fiction, right? That like a client wouldn't be uncomfortable walking in to see the guy in the miniskirt with his, you know, man appearance. Like bullshit.

Most normal people would be like, wow, okay, that's a lot. Like you do you in your private life, but I don't want to have to think about this while i'm just trying to get like my my pens at the pharmacy um but in any event you're right billy porter does it harry styles does it the golden globes would be celebrating it of course at every turn i will say there was this weird moment where it was kind of interesting though where the host gerard carmichael made a joke joke about Tom Cruise. Now, there's a history here. So, first of all, Maverick, you know, Top Gun Maverick, was nominated for like two awards. It didn't get any.

I mean, I never heard of these movies that won the awards. But, of course, Maverick didn't get any because it was anti-woke. So it can't be honored by this group, which is bending over backwards to prove how woke it is now, that, you know, after all the years of not having a single black member, okay, now we're super woke. So we're not going to give Top Gun any awards. Nevermind Tom Cruise. Well, Tom Cruise during the whole kerfuffle about the Hollywood foreign press and how it's like, you know, golden globe, so white, he sent back the three, the three golden globes that he had won.

Like you're disgusting. Here are my awards. I think it was his Golden Globes he sent back. And Gerard Carmichael made a joke about it. I'm interested in your reaction to this. Listen to Sot7. Backstage, I found these three Golden Globe Awards that Tom Cruise returned. Look, I'm just the host briefly or whatever, but I have a pitch.

I think maybe we take these three things and exchange them for the safe return of Shelley Miscavige. Oh, so it's a Scientology reference. The head of Scientology is no longer L. Ron Hubbard. He died. Now it's David Miscavige. And it is true. David Miscavige's wife has been weirdly missing for quite some time. We don't know where she is.

People like Leah Remini and Mike Rinder have been asking all sorts of questions about this. Scientology, of course, is like us. You know, they don't let any information out that they don't want out. So it's a good question. But I don't think it's a coincidence Tom Cruise was a fair target last night. It's a really good point. Scientology is a cult. I think it is a very it is a dangerous thing. They've infested all the acting schools in L.A.

So anybody who's really coming into the industry gets at least solicited by them. And I think that they're bad news, but they've worked for Tom Cruise. And the interesting thing about Tom Cruise is if you went and saw Top Gun 2, you know, it's a fun, dopey movie. And it made about a billion dollars in 10 minutes. It was a huge, huge hit because it wasn't woke. It was about competence. It was about America. It was about men being men and women being women. And it was just a pleasure to watch all the way through. But the interesting thing as I was watching that film, as I was watching Tom Cruise, and

it's not the smartest movie in the world. It's very cliched. A lot of, you know, kind of recycled dialogue. Cruise really showed up. He showed up and he played every scene as if it mattered. He played every scene as if he meant it and he cared about it. He did the stunts himself, which is insane. I mean, the insurance they must pay on him must be out of this world. He flies helicopters off cliffs. He does anything he has to do.

You got to give that credit to a guy who is the heart and soul of the industry. So you want to make jokes about Scientology, that's absolutely fine with me. But he's a lot more important than the Golden Globe Awards. The Golden Globe Awards could disappear tomorrow and nobody would care. If Tom Cruise stopped making money, the movie industry would go broke because he became fair game. He'd actually make money. He became fair game because he made that movie.

It's directly tied. If he hadn't done Top Gun Maverick this year, which was anti-woke, which stood up to China, which wouldn't back down on some of the demands being made by the Chinese who run Hollywood now, it would have been a different story. But now because he did all that, they're somehow associating him with like being a Republican or at least being anti-woke. And therefore, he's fair game for the Golden Globes ripping. Otherwise, he would have been treated like the Hollywood royalty he's been. Go ahead, Andrew. You know, this is a really interesting thing because you're talking about the fact that

Hollywood had a terrible, terrible year and they blame it all on streaming. But one of the biggest shows last year on television, one of the biggest stream shows on television was The Terminalist based on Jack Carr's book. Just an absolutely terrific action film with manly men and, you know, kind of pro-military or at least pro-the military culture. Lots of guns and very exciting. Carr is a good writer.

He writes, you know, he writes in my genre. I know a good writer when I see one. He plots well and the thing was plotted well, well acted, well done. You go on Rotten Tomatoes, it gets something like a 95% from the viewing audience. 95% of the viewing artists loved it and it was a massive hit. It gets about a 36% or a 38% from

the film critics. These guys are now... By the way, and a film critic's job is to tell you whether you like the film or not, not whether he likes the film. It's to tell you whether you'll like the film. So they're not even doing their jobs. But they are so detached from most of America and most of the reasons we go to the movies. And part of this is because the movies are a dying art form. And when an art form dies, it does detach from the people and becomes very intellectualized. And that's what's happening to the movies. But the industry, the infrastructure of the industry, the part that used to be used to bring people in and to protect the stars from us finding out how bad they really were, all of that has collapsed because of wokeness. And now they're talking to us, and we don't like them anymore. And I think that's really important, you know, that they don't like us, and we don't like them. And I don't think you can run a popular industry on that basis. If you're not making Top Gun, if you're not making The Terminal List, if you're not making movies that at least reflect

something like our values and like the values of most of the people in the country, indeed, most of the people who aren't insane in the world, if you're not making movies that talk to those values, why should anybody go and see them? I don't care how many award shows you have. Eventually, you'll be giving awards to yourself and nobody will be watching because nobody's watching the movies and the industry will just disappear. A great opportunity, by the way, for conservatives to start building their own industry and making their own movies, but I don't know if there's enough to do it. Well, no, I was dying to talk to you about this because, and just to remind our audience,

before you became a very famous podcaster and member of the Daily Wire team, you continue to, but you started off as a writer and a screenwriter and including, either wrote the book that turned into a film or a screenplay, connected with true crime with Clint Eastwood, shock to the system with Michael Caine, don't say a word with Michael Douglas, I could go on. So you know of what you speak. So the other thing they're doing is closer to my lane, which is like journalism, but theirs is fake journalism. So and I don't mean just fake news that we see. I'm talking about these sort of limited series, docu series, docu mentories. And I'm using air quotes for the listening audience that that aren't, that are nothing of the kind. You know, from Finding Neverland, which focused on the Michael Jackson situation with young boys, and it had two accusers come forward with stories that had so many holes in them that were not called to the audience's attention. And then Oprah came on to sort of

bless the whole thing at the end on HBO, like, oh, how bad was it? Right. And without pointing out any of the problems with these two young men's stories to even the Dylan Farrow thing against Woody Allen. on Netflix, which has had so many journalistic fall downs. I mean, I could go through them all, but they call it a documentary. You want to call it like a dramatization of somebody's life or like just their story, you know, like from their perspective. OK, but it's not a documentary if it's not fact based and if you're not pointing out the full story. So the reason I want to bring it up with you is because, yes, your history, but also my husband's got a podcast called Dedicated with Doug Brunt. He's an author and he's been interviewed. In fact, you should go on that show now that I think about it. He interviews successful authors about writing and their process and their biggest successes.

Yesterday, he had on Craig Mazin. Craig Mazin won three Emmy Awards and wrote Chernobyl, which was a docuseries for HBO. And they got into this. And here's what he said about the Harry and Meghan documentary and where we are now on some of these documentaries or quote unquote docuseries. Listen to this. On the TV side, there's a real spectrum, a wide spectrum of responsibility, like journalistic responsibility with film. There's a high level of respect and sort of accuracy and that. But, you know, on the flip side, like the Harry and Meghan thing,

where they were using images from crowd shots that were not, they weren't even there. There was just a lot of sort of deception involved with that. Well, that's the reality TV-ification of content. People feel like, well, there's this genre that uses the word reality that has nothing to do with reality. It is basically professional wrestling, I think. It's presented as reality, but everybody's winking to each other because of course it's not. And so they don't have a problem showing one thing or another

and faking it all. And people do this in, I mean, I can't, how many times they've caught political campaigns showing pictures of real people with their real thoughts. And someone's like, that's a stock photo.

It's not even a person. So that's Craig Mazin saying on Dedicated with Doug Brunt that the Harry and Meghan documentary is essentially professional wrestling. And so many of these documentaries are. But the consumer, Andrew, doesn't know that. You know, this wouldn't be a problem, Meghan, if if the experts and the authorities and the media were not as self-corrupt. If the New York Times were still a newspaper and you could turn to the New York Times and find the facts, then it wouldn't bother me that they were making unfactual documentaries.

If ABC and NBC and CBS had not become handmaidens of the big state, it would be fine with me if they occasionally played silly documentaries and reality TV that had nothing to do with reality. The problem we have is that we're in an information crisis, that because of the internet, because of the amount of information that's coming in, because of the threat that poses to people in power, and the fact that people in power have become corrupt and dishonest, trying to stem that threat, trying to keep control of their power while their power is undermined by the spread of information, we don't know where to turn and it becomes very, very hard to tell reality from fantasy. The other day I watched the entire Netflix series, Ancient Apocalypse,

which is Graham Hancock, a journalist who has this theory about the ancient peoples and how some great kind of Atlantis-like civilization existed before the Ice Age. And it's a kind of a cockney theory, but there was some interesting stuff. And most of it was really fast and loose. But instead of coming out and saying, here is why we archaeologists think this is wrong, they called Hancock a white supremacist, which he's not. They accused him of attacking indigenousist, which he's not. They accused him of attacking indigenous people, which he didn't. They were absolutely furious that he insulted archaeologists,

whereas that's actually not a crime. You can insult anybody you want to. And they basically responded at the same level as he was putting forward his theory. He was very fast and loose with this theory, but he put it forward and you can attack it, you could disprove it, but they didn't. They basically called them names. And so when you can't trust the archaeologists to give you archaeology straight, then how do you know whether Graham Hancock

is making up what he's making up or not? If you can't trust the CDC to not suppress information on Twitter, then how do you know when somebody else comes along and says, well, the vaccine will kill you like that? How do you know he's not telling the truth? So because in protecting their power, the authorities have decided that it's okay to lie. It's okay to suppress nude. It's okay to suppress Hunter Biden's laptop and tell people it's Russian misinformation. Because of that, we have no one to trust.

And when you have no one to trust, you're going to trust the people who agree with you more. You're going to go with the confirmation bias. That's the issue. It's really not the issue that Hollywood is full of malarkey. Hollywood is supposed to be full of malarkey. That's their job. It's the problem that we cannot trust the news media and the authorities to tell us the truth. So we can't tell their malarkey from Hollywood's malarkey. So well said. All right. Well, somebody might think listening to this conversation that we're

talking about leftists who don't care at all about discrimination against Asians or anything that upsets the Asian community, you know, based on the Supreme Court laws, you would be wrong. Gwen Stefani is in the news. And we'll explain how those two things are related right after this very quick break. We're with Andrew Klavan right after this. Gwen Stefani is now in trouble with some on the woke left because she gave an interview to a very young reporter at Allure magazine. And in the article, the author of the piece, who says she is, I believe, Filipina, says that Gwen committed the sin of cultural appropriation. That Gwen, apparently a couple of years ago, went through a phase that the author refers to as, she said first she went through pop punk Stefani

with baby blue hair. Then there was ska era Stefani with platinum blonde hair, a bikini top and cargo pants. And then there was Harajuku Stefani, Harajuku apparently being a district in Tokyo. And she says that she had launched this line of perfume not long ago that was taking inspiration from Japan's Harajuku subculture for its visuals and marketing.

OK, so so far she's not ripping her. She's like, you know, I loved it. I thought it was really great. But then I never really spent a lot of time thinking about the fact that it was a white woman behind this Asian representation. As an adult, though, I'm coming to examine it. And I have not been alone. Then she gets into it. She thinks that was cultural appropriation. And then Gwen, when asked about it,

tries to explain why she fell in love with this region and this culture and so on, and says, that was my Japanese influence. That was a culture that was so rich with traditions, yet so futuristic with so much attention to art and detail and discipline. It was fascinating to me. Explain how her father, whoian-american would return after going there with stories of street performances and so on and she finally got to go herself as an adult stefani quote i said my god i'm japanese and i didn't know it stefani quote i am you know and she goes on to say if people are going to criticize me for being a fan of something beautiful and sharing that, that just doesn't feel right. Should be OK to be inspired by other cultures, because if we're not allowed and that's dividing people. Right. And this author

goes on to say, look, I'm not Japanese either, but I am an Asian woman living in America, which comes with sobering realities, goes on to discuss all the sobering realities. She's been called racial slurs. You know, get over it. We've all been called terrible names. All of us, even white guys like Klavan. They all have. But of course, she's got to lean into. All right. So now there's a whole thing about whether Gwen Stefani has really stepped over the line by saying, I am Japanese. No problem for Gwen Stoff, Stefani, to come out tomorrow and say, I'm a man. I'm a man. She could say it, no problem. But I am Japanese has caused the people at Allure to tsk tsk her with all these experts weighing in saying she's culturally

appropriated again, and they're angry. What do you make of it? Well, it's hilarious. I mean, first, just taking her at her word, what she was saying made perfect sense. She went to this district in Tokyo that's famous for its street performances and people dressing up, and she's obviously someone who performs in dressing up. So she said, oh, they're me. I'm Japanese. It's like me reading romantic poetry and thinking, oh, I'm a romantic. I get it now. This is where I belong. It's a perfectly rational thing to do. However, it's very hard to pinpoint what is the stupidest aspect of leftism. But cultural appropriation comes very close to winning the prize. Cultural appropriation is one of the greatest things about America and one of the most healthy things about our mixing in the world.

When you come to America, if you come legally, our feeling is, bring your food, leave the tyranny. You know, you want to come from Mexico legally, bring the burrito, leave the cartels. That's like, that is absolutely a great thing about America. It is what makes America so great. And what makes, it's the only argument there is for having a multi-ethnic country. A multi-ethnic country is very difficult. No one has done it since Rome, and it really brought the Roman Republic down in a lot of ways. I'm talking about ancient Rome, even now Rome. So nobody's done this in a long time. This is a big experiment, and it might well fail. We don't know. However, if there's one reason to have a

multi-ethnic country, it's cultural appropriation. And so we get all the good stuff and leave the bad stuff out by having an American culture of freedom and individual freedom and free speech and limited power of government and all those things that people come here for and the capitalism, but they bring with them things that are beautiful. You know, their clothes, their styles, their fashions, their food. And if we want to take those and make them part of our clothes and our styles and our fashion and our food, great. That's a great reason to have a multi-ethnic country. I think it's a beautiful thing. I think it's one of the best things about America. And it really is the only thing that makes a multi-ethnic country worthwhile. So the left's idea is this. When Donald Trump comes along and says, make America great again,

everybody says, oh, that's nationalism. That's terrible. He's Hitler. But when a Filipino woman says you can't steal Japanese culture because I'm Asian and they're Asian and something, something, something, that suddenly is okay nationalism. So it really is only against the West. It's only against America. So it's really anti-Americanism hiding away in this, and yet another shocked moral outrage that the left has invented. But cultural, we shouldn't, we shouldn't like make excuses for cultural appropriation. It is one of the best things about us. It's not, it's not a bad thing. Like, you know, you could, you could say if the left is fighting racism, you could say they're fighting it the wrong way. But racism is a bad thing.

But cultural appropriation is a great thing. It's a positive. It's ridiculous. Honestly, it's like you, somebody made a piece saying like big hoop earrings. Now that's cultural appropriation of the Latinx community. By the way, Sarah Huckabee Sanders in the news today for banning any government document now in Arkansas that uses Latinx. Go, Sarah, go, go, go, go. In any event, the earrings. I remember taking my kids down with my husband and my family.

We were in the Bahamas. And back when I was the first in the Bahamas and it was like 1987, you get the braids like the braids was what everybody wanted to do. And the Bahamian women love to give you the braids. You'd pay them. And it was a way of sharing cultures. Now it's like, oh, my God, I was like, I don't think I can get the braids on my daughter. I think it's like maybe she can have two. She can have like two, maybe otherwise going to turn into a national news story. What am I doing this stupid? In any event, Gwen Stefani clearly didn't try to misrepresent that she's in fact Japanese. She was saying in her. Obviously, the implication was in my soul. I connected with these people and their culture

and how beautiful it was. That is a compliment, you dumbass allure writer. It is not a Hilaria Baldwin situation, right? It's like she claims she's from Spain and she's not. Anyway, I think it's funny. Another celebrity in the news today on something that got a lot of attention online yesterday. It is a slow news week, but I'll say that is Ellen DeGeneres, who thinks that the reason they're having all these rains and floods in California is we haven't been kind to Mother Nature.

It's once again clearly back to we got to get greener. We got to think about climate change. One of those lectures. Here's a little bit of it. Sat 12. This is crazy. On the five year anniversary, we're having unprecedented rain. This creek next to our house never flows, ever. Probably about nine feet up and you can go another two feet up.

We have four to three feet of rapid rain. Please be nice to the Mother Nature. The Mother Nature is not happy with us. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate.

We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. We're not happy with the climate. That fortune's ready to go back to place. Be nice to the Mother Nature.

The Mother Nature is not happy with us. Let's all do our part. Space save everybody. She was fine until that last two lines. We need to be nicer to Mother Nature. Mother Nature's clearly unhappy. Let's all do our part. Now, can I just, I'll give you a couple facts from Michael Schellenberger, who's the go-to

on anything relating to climate. A former hardcore liberal who worked for Solyndra, worked for the Obama administration, and then actually started finding facts that proved this stuff doesn't work very well. And we need to get real about what does big proponent of nuclear and other things. And according to Schellenberger, the data show the number of climate-related disasters actually declined over the last 20 years by about 10%. There has been a 92% decline in the decade's death toll from natural disasters since its peak in the 1920s. In that decade, 5.4 million people died of natural disasters. In the 2010s, it was 400,000. 400 that we went down by 5 million in terms of deaths from natural disasters.

So we're doing something right. The 92% decline in deaths over the last century occurred during a period when the global population nearly quadrupled and the global temperature rose 1.3 degrees centigrade. In other words, hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters resulting from extreme events are not getting worse. They're getting better, much better. And deaths from natural disasters are at their lowest point in 120 years. Ellen, which a simple Google search might have told you before you decided to add that little warning at the end of your bit. Here's something even worse. One of the reasons the death toll has gone down so much

is not because the storms have changed. It's because we've gotten so much richer and we're so much more able to build protections and build cities in ways that don't get destroyed the way they used to. That's because of capitalism and because of fossil fuels. So in other words, fossil fuels are actually making the world safer in the event of

climate disasters. I'm glad to see that paganism is making a return, however, that we have to make sacrifices to Mother Nature, because at least now Hollywood will have some religion. My first thought when I saw this was that this was God finally responding to Hollywood's sinfulness. And I was wondering, when they built an ark, how would they know whether the animals identified as male or female when they were trying to rebuild the world? So it would be very difficult.

You know, I have to say, I lived in Montecito. I lived in Montecito for many years. Many of my friends are being evacuated. I don't want to make fun of a storm that is actually killing people. But, you know, storms happen, weather happens. Mother Nature can wipe us off this planet in a flick of an eye. You know, she is all powerful. She can take us away anytime she wants. But these are the things that happen. They happen a lot in California. It goes right over a major fault. So there's going to be earthquakes. It's a desert. So there's going to be extremes

of weather. You know, it is just the way things are. And this is, again, how we become stupid, because if you question climate emergence alarmism, if you question that, you're a denier, as if you had denied the reality of the Holocaust, the most well-documented atrocity in human history. So by denying something documented from the past is being equated with denying a computer projection of what might happen under certain circumstances. That, again, makes you stupid because you can't have a conversation about anything without being compared to some of the worst people on Earth. And it really is ridiculous. It's like stay in your lane, Ellen.

It makes people like Ellen stupid. You know how to make jokes. That's your thing. Okay. Stop lecturing us on the environment. Stay in your damn lane. Okay. Let's talk about what's happening in the FAA this morning, because that was pretty shocking. You wake up to a news alert saying all domestic travel. I mean, it was all travel. All planes trying to get out of the United States

had been grounded. First time since 9-11 that's happened because of some computer malfunction. It's back up now, but there are people and they're saying we don't know what caused it, but we're going to investigate. We expect to know soon. They did say we don't believe it was hacking, although I don't know how they could know that so quickly. OK, so we'll find out. But now some airline experts are weighing in, saying this is squarely the fault of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. They're saying there's no excuse. One guy was on earlier today, airline industry expert, saying there's no excuse for the failure

that is the latest in a string of embarrassing transport headaches since Buttigieg took office. Michael Boyd, chairman of the Boyd Group, an aviation research company, telling CNBC the FAA has fallen off the trolley in terms of keeping up their system. There is no excuse. And that, you know, we really need to keep our eye on things like the FAA and its computer systems and so on, instead of dumping, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars into woke scholarships. And I don't know what else we're wasting money on. We could be here all day if we listed it. But it is kind of disturbing to think the FAA is not, you know, this pencil is not as sharp as it needs to be. Yeah. I mean, you know, Pete Buttigieg obviously doesn't make the planes run on time. That's not, you know, it's his job to oversee these things, but he's not a hands-on guy. But the problem with

him is he doesn't seem to realize that this is an actual job, that you actually have to do things and you have to oversee the transportation system. This was the failure of a software system, which is also what brought down Southwest over the holidays, the software going down. This was the notice. It used to be called notice to airmen. Now it's called notice to air missions because we didn't want to gender our pilots. You know, and this thing goes down. It's been in place since World War Two. So every time that little thing that says you have an update in your software, you want to press that button. And I think that the problem with Pete Buttigieg is not that he should be on top of everything before it happens. It's that he

shouldn't be doing the stuff he is doing, which as you say, is taking two month paternity leave when he rents a baby, taking all this time to go after racist bridges. I mean, this was this thing he did where apparently he read the six-minute summary of Robert Caro's great, great book, The Power Broker, about Robert Moses. And Robert Moses, who built most of New York, was a stone racist and didn't like the little people and would drive highways right through poor neighborhoods and just destroy them. He was a terrible, terrible person. However, he did build most of New York. So he's going to go back into the past and fix that.

I'm pretty sure Robert Moses' death was permanent. He's not coming back. It's not what we need to fix. He's not paying attention to the supply chain. He's not paying attention to things like this, the airplanes and the software and all this. He's not paying attention to train strikes and unions. These are the things that he has to do. He doesn't seem to understand that he actually has a job. He's treating it like a sinecure,

like it's something you just get and then you collect the money and go home and it's fine. That's not the way it works. It is an actual job and it does need to be done and he's not doing it. And that's the thing I blame him for. And I think that's the thing that, you know, like he was never going to become president. That was, that was something that were floating around, but I think it's going to be very hard for him now to run on his record because his record stinks. And again, it's not what he is doing. It's what he's not doing. Well, the media will run cover for him as I'm sure we'll see the news play out today, but I'm sure they'll run cover for, for Buttieg, for Biden on on all of this. If this were Trump, it'd be a much bigger story, right? They'd be blaming the administration immediately,

just like they're doing on the Biden top secret classified documents turning up at his University of Pennsylvania office, which happened to be in Washington, D.C., but it was in connection with his I guess he I guess he was lecturing at the University of Pennsylvania during his four years off during the Trump administration. Listen to Joy Behar on why we really shouldn't care about that. That really isn't a story. It's not because it didn't compare in scope to what Trump did. OK, I could see that argument. No, that's not why. Listen, here she is in SOT4. We all know that Trump is a liar and a thief. You know, we know that. So it's not that big a jump to say that he obstructed and he lied.

We don't think that Biden is a liar and a thief. So we give him the benefit of the doubt. So Biden doesn't lie, Andrew. You see, Biden, he's like Honest Abe, never tells a lie. I'm not sure a true word in Biden's mouth would die of loneliness. You know, this is the thing that, again, talking about this information crisis, CNN rushed to sort of say, well, it's a false equivalence, you know, between Trump and Biden. But it's really not.

You know, I mean, the difference is, yes, there were many more documents. Trump did give a hard time to the archives about giving the documents back. However, only one of these people suffered an FBI raid on his home, as if we were living in a banana republic where you arrest the last guy who ran the government. And only one of these guys, namely Trump, had the right to declassify the documents that he was taking. He was the president of the United States. President of the United States can just declare to declassify the documents that he was taking. He was the president of the United States. President of the United States can just declare something declassified. These are

documents that Biden had when he was vice president. So he had no business taking them. But it's just at this point, it's just the comedy of it, really. You know, we just had Trump's tax returns released and that was going to put Trump in jail. And apparently he just pays his taxes and uses every dodge he can, like everybody else, every honest dodge he can. Trump has been, they've been telling us the walls are closing in. It's the end of the line. He's going to jail for decades at this point. And it's just the absurdity of the way one party is covered and the way the other party is covered. It really is a problem. I mean, our corrupt media, our corrupt news media genuinely is a problem and it genuinely is damaging to our political and our social life. And I want to know about the National Archivist.

Did he go back to the former vice president and say, I'm not sure I have all your documents? Or what have you done to search all of your documents to make sure that I, the national repository for all documents, have everything I'm supposed to have? He did it for Trump. So why not? What I mean, what did they do it for Biden? Let's find out more. Why was there so little interest in what those other former presidents and vice presidents had in their home offices and so much in Trump? Right. Could there be a different standard when it comes to our leaders that led to this whole raid and conflict to begin with? I'm sure we'll be getting real answers on that in the fake probe that the DOJ is now doing of Biden. Andrew, great to see you. Thank you so much for being here. Always good talking to you, Megan. Thanks a lot. A pleasure. OK, Dan Wooten's here with some real thoughts on the attacks launched by Harry on him. Prince Harry is now, you'll be shocked, blasting the media, claiming news organizations are putting his life in danger for covering the fact that he wrote in his book that he killed 25 Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan.

You see, that, too, is the media's fault. Joining me today is Dan Wooten. Dan is the host of Dan Wooten Tonight on GB News and a columnist for the Daily Mail.com. He's broken tons of big exclusives on the Royals, including Harry and Meghan, and Harry is none too happy about it. Dan, welcome back to the show. Great to be here, Meghan. All right. So this is really galling. He writes in his own book that he killed 25 Taliban, that he looked at them not as humans, but as chess pieces on a board. He wrote that no one made him write that. And now he's very angry that the press has written about it. Here's what he says. This is when he went on Colbert last night. Oh, wait, we have it. OK, listen, here he is on Colbert.

Look, I'm not going to lie. The last few days have been hurtful and challenging, not being able to do anything about those leaks that you refer to. But perhaps the or no, not perhaps, without doubt, the most dangerous lie that they have told is that I somehow boasted about the number of people that I killed in Afghanistan. But it's a lie. And hopefully now that the book is out, people will be able to see the context. And it is, it's really troubling and very disturbing that they can get away with it. And that's dangerous. And my words are not dangerous, but the spin of my words are very dangerous. You see, Dan, once again, it's the press's fault.

Always the fault of the media, isn't it, Megan? We're seeing this more and more with Harry and Megan. They never take responsibility, even for their own words. So first we saw them roll back on those claims to Oprah Winfrey that there was a racist running around at the senior levels of the royal family. All of a sudden, no, no, no, we didn't mean there was a racist, just there's a lot of unconscious bias going on. Now that there has been a significant backlash to these comments from Harry about the 25 members of the Taliban, who he claims that he killed when in service there as part of the British Army, all of a sudden it is the fault of the British media for reporting his exact words. This is a man-baby who isn't even able to claim credit for his own words. This is the part and the end in Spare Men. It's never Harry's fault, ever.

It's always someone else's fault. It's either the Queen's fault or King Charles' fault or William's fault or the fault of his school teachers. But largely, as you have pointed out, it's the fault of folk like me, members of the British media. We are the devil. We are dangerous. We are dangerous. We are evil. Actually, if you listen to the members of the military at the senior levels of the military in the UK,

they're not complaining about the coverage of Harry's words. They're complaining about the fact that he has made this revelation at all. Now, they're the experts on the Taliban and the military, Megan, I'm not. But they have made it very clear over the past couple of days that this passage in Harry's book now significantly increases the security risk, not just to Harry and his immediate family in Montecito, but to the entire royal family, to the king, to William, and actually to British people overall, because the Taliban are using this and there are increasing threats being made, in particular to the people of London. By the way, Man Baby even got a laugh out loud out of

Abby, which is a big A plus. She's a cynical newswoman like I am sitting next to me all day. It takes a lot to make her laugh out loud, but you did it on the Taliban thing. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say what he's mad about is that they called it a boast. And he wants to say it wasn't a boast. First of all, that's a matter of opinion. And there have been a lot of ex-military saying that's how we view it. There was absolutely no reason to disclose it. You might have tried to couch it in sort of a self-revelatory, like I'm reflecting on my time, but we all see it as what we think it is, which is a brag. And so they're entitled to their opinion. Too bad. Harry wants to control everybody's thoughts and feelings and statements, not just ours, but even former military who were offended by the statement.

Like it's what's dangerous is how you reacted to it. Not what I actually said. But here's how he's now trying to spin it. This is so absurd. He says the reason he chose to write about his kill count was to reduce the number of suicides among military veterans. I made a choice to share it because having spent nearly two decades working with veterans around the world, I think the most important thing is to be honest and to give space to others to share their experiences without any shame. Well, Colonel Kemp, who commanded Operation Fingal in Afghanistan in 2003, told the Mail Online he did not think that revealing the number would help any healing journey and that it's given the Taliban more fuel for propaganda. Of course, here he is again. He's so altruistic, Dan. He's such a stallion. That's his own word in his book, such a stallion. But he can't take credit for it. Even this was just to help others. It wasn't to make him look like a tough guy. Oh, no, indeed. And he doesn't make

any mistakes ever. But actually, what's so disturbing is when you really dig down into the campaign going on here, what Harry wants is the free British press to be controlled, to be limited. He's actually calling and he laughs in the face of his father at one point, King Charles, when he says to him, look, dear boy, it's impossible for the institution to control the media. And Harry laughs in his face. He is living in a world where he genuinely believes that the British royal family should be able to control what someone like me as a British citizen can write and publish or broadcast. And so Harry thought that it was absolutely fine for him to include all of this information in his book, which we remember he's making millions and millions of dollars for, but it wasn't right for the British press to report on the ramifications of him making this comment. And so I would put it back to Harry, the Duke of Sussex, that you're the dangerous one.

You're the dangerous one because you want a British society where there is no freedom of the press. And remember, Megan, we don't have the constitutional protection here in the UK that journalists and broadcasters like you have in the US. So I actually think what he's calling for is chilling. Yeah. You know, he called the First Amendment bonkers that we luckily have over here. He doesn't believe in it. He doesn't believe in the principle of free speech or the free press here or there. And this is embodied in his attack. I mean, what a pathetic soul. He attacks you in his book for what? For publishing some viciously untrue story that turned out to embarrass you. No, that did not happen. You broke Mexit and he's

mad. He's mad you didn't sit back. By the way, I read in your piece on the Daily Mail, you gave them a week's notice to respond, to weigh in. It's not like you just ran to the presses with this, but you were right in any event. You could have done that. He's mad you broke it, that you didn't let him break it. Well, hello. That's not how the media works. And for this, you get labeled a sad little man, a sad little man. Go ahead, sad little man. For doing your job, something that's actually really important to both his country and ours. I know.

He actually calls me a sad little man, I think, three times. It's always these sort of be kind, woke lefties, isn't it, Megan, who love throwing the personal insult at the people who they don't agree with politically, which is what I think this is really about. But actually, when it came to the Megxit story, and that wasn't the only big story I broke about Harry and Megan, but I guess it was the culmination of a whole load of previous scoots. He was so angry that I had this information and that I was about to break the story that he actually reveals in the book that he called up his grandmother, the queen. He bothered the queen about my story and says, look, Gran, the son has this story. So I'm going to have to scoop them and release my own statement about it. She says, all right, be careful.

And he decides actually can't put the statement together fast enough. So he's going to let the sad little man, me, publish the story, which I do. But what he has done, and this is not surprising, Megan, because the book is littered with provably untrue claims. And this is one of them. He claims that the reason that I published the story so quickly is that I was working in concert with Buckingham Palace, that we were somehow conspiring on this story together. Well, I can tell you right now that's completely not true. I had gone to Harry's own communications secretary seven days before publishing the story. I had had numerous conversations with her.

I knew because she told me that she was speaking directly with Harry and Meghan about my story and that they were meeting with her at Fogmore Cottage the moment that they landed from Canada. I even included within the story briefing. You know, briefing, the thing that Harry says is like evil and is so bad that he should end his relationship with his father and his stepmother and his brother. Well, guess who was providing the briefing to me on that story? Him, his own communications secretary. And I'll tell you what the briefing was. And by the way,

I don't usually talk about this stuff because actually people don't really need to know about how the sausage is made. And I actually also believe it's incredibly important, something I would go to jail to do, protecting sources. But in this case, I'm not claiming that Harry and Meghan were the source of the story. What I'm saying is I got the story myself, but then I was doing my job as a journalist. I wanted to provide both sides of the story. So they briefed me. And the briefing that they gave me on the story was that the reason they were so angry about the royal family is that the Queen had released a picture over the Christmas period, because remember, they had snubbed the Queen. They hadn't wanted to be with her for one of

her final Christmases. They had instead spent it in Canada. And she had released a picture of the Queen, Charles, William, and George. And Harry was so furious about this, he took it as a slight. And he thought it was a sign from the monarch that she was saying to Harry and Meghan, you're not going to be a part of the monarchy in the future. And that was one of the reasons that they were so angry and that they started to speed up, I guess you could say, the discussions about Megxit. But I faithfully included that in the story. And I also included a line, and this is obviously really banal information, but just to explain to you how this briefing works, a line saying that Meghan wasn't worried about the British weather. She wasn't moving to Canada

because she wanted to get away from the horrible British weather. This was something that she was apparently concerned about. Of course, as we know, Canada is quite a lot colder than California, where they ended up a few weeks later. But the reason I'm going into that detail, Megan, is because I think it's really important for folk to know that Harry and Meghan were doing all of this briefing. I had hundreds and hundreds of phone calls with staff members for the Sussexes over their time in the royal family. And so they claim that they should end their relationship. I just don't understand it. Right. They're their own relatives. They're upset their relatives briefed the press and they also did it. Here's here's I find this very telling. He says, as expected, this is from the book, Chapter 73.

The story depicted our departure as rollicking, carefree, hedonistic, tapping out rather than a careful retreat, an attempt at self-preservation. It also included the telling detail that we had offered to relinquish our Sussex titles. There was only one document on earth in which that detail was mentioned, my private and confidential letter to my father. Let's take those point by point. I love it. Like he does want to control the press. You should have portrayed it as a thoughtful self-preservation attempt, Dan. You had no business referring to this as a tapping out, which weren't, whatever. But this is how obsessed this guy is.

He doesn't understand we can write what we want. If we have facts that are telling us it's A and you wanna say it's B, and if you wanna come to me and tell me it's B, I'll include that in there. If you say nothing, I'm going with A. That's what I have from my source. Too bad that you wrote it in a way he didn't like it. This is so petulant and small minded. But on point B, I get it more interested. He said this on his press tour too, that there's

a reason he believes you worked in concert with the palace on this is because the detail of we had offered to relinquish our Sussex titles was something only one person he claims knew. He claims he had told his dad, then Prince Charles, now King, that they would do that, that the dad weirdly asked him to put it in writing. And he was like, why do I need to put it in writing? It's my own dad, but okay, I'll do it. He sent it to the dad, Prince Charles, and and that within a week it wound up in your reporting and so he's saying it's very clear the palace worked to get this story out only he and prince charles knew about it exactly what he has to understand is that once this document was sent to Prince Charles, the wills were in motion. The palace had to start preparing the options for Megxit.

They had to present these options to the queen who made the final decision. So obviously a lot more people knew than his father. But again, there's another really critical factual inaccuracy here. I had already gone to his communication secretary with the story, and I can prove that before he even sent the email to his father. So he's talking rubbish, but he speaks rubbish throughout the book. Honestly, it is littered with lies because Harry only believes in his truth. Well, you talked about how he felt that he was being slighted by the queen because he wasn't in the photograph, despite what he'd done to the queen. But this is a theme

throughout the book. He feels slighted at everything. I mean, we talked a little bit about this on your show last night. He's mad that when he was young, he shared a room with William and William's half of the room was bigger and nicer. He attributes everything to the fact that he was the, quote, spare. And meanwhile, it's like, has he any younger brother or sister in the world can tell you they've all had that experience? The firstborn usually gets the best choice. It's not about preferring that child to the others. It's about how do you got to pick some fair way of doing it?

And, you know, he's been here first. And you know what then happens? The first one leaves and goes off to school. And the second one graduates in terms of the room size. But it's just one example of how he sees everything as a slight to him. Completely. And actually, when I was reading the book, I thought it was a total lack of compassion or understanding on his part about the role that his father and his brother had to take on. I mean, they didn't ask to be born first, Megan. This is the bizarre way, right, that our constitutional monarchy in the UK works.

So he's incredibly aggrieved because he's the spare. But actually, Charles and William are struggling throughout their entire life, because they have no freedom. As we know, because Harry has revealed it, William wasn't even able to get married with a beard because the queen said, no, you're going to be king. That's not how you behave. Harry, as the spare, was allowed that flexibility and freedom. And I also thought there was a real willful blindness, I guess I would describe it, to actually times when Charles and William were quite clearly trying to save Harry from himself. And he recounts lots of these conversations, right, as if they're being a bad father or a bad brother.

But my reading of them was actually they're trying to help you, mate. They are desperately trying to make sure you don't go down these dodgy paths. And actually, there's so much compassion from King Charles in particular shown. For example, Megan, we remember the Nazi uniform saga. We remember the naked picture scandal in Las Vegas. After both of those occasions, Harry goes to see Charles. And Charles is incredibly tender and incredibly kind. And at his lowest moments,

his dad is there for him, even, by the way, as a 29-year-old man. I think most 29-year-old men don't have to rely on their parents for money or for emotional support. But Harry, because he is this man, baby, does. And that's fine. He's got mental health issues. So he goes to his dad and his dad at 29 years old actually gets him in with a doctor practically, but Harry decides he doesn't want to undergo the treatment at that time. So what I saw from Charles was actually, yes, a bit of a hapless father at times, but someone who tried to do his best. When it came to the relationship with William, yeah, he's a bit tougher on his brother. But again, in those dark moments, he is there for him. And so I think Harry actually is attempting to portray his mother and his brother as being

caring, but that wasn't my reading of the situation. Also, by the way, they just don't like being told advice that they don't agree with. So, for example, even once Megan is in the family, there's a conversation between Camilla and the Sussexes where she gives some advice to Megan about just riding out the storm. And obviously, no one knows better than Camilla, right, how tough it can be when you are not liked by the British public. Because Camilla had a really tough time for years. I mean, she was described as a rottweiler. She was totally despised because she was the other woman in the marriage who had left Diana devastated. And Meghan ignores that advice. There's another moment, right, where the Queen says, Meghan, you've got to fly to Mexico to go and see your father and actually sort this out with him face to face. What brilliant advice from Queen Elizabeth II. And if only

Meghan had done that, she would have avoided so much stress and so much strain. She refuses because she's so paranoid about a picture being taken of her going into her dad's house. Well, how ridiculous. So I guess the point that I'm making is actually the royal family give lots of good advice to Harry and Meghan, but Harry can't see that it was good advice. I think it was probably Meghan most of the time who was saying, ignore your father, ignore your brother, ignore your grandmother. And I think they did that at their peril. He can't stand his brother. I'm sorry, but I had no idea the amount of loathing he has for Prince William. And he paints him as an absolute cad who was bullying him and

unkind to him at every turn. And of course, then paints himself as the hero. I mean, he goes into great detail about how amazing he has been. He, Harry. Here are a couple of examples. First, we've talked about before he blamed his Nazi costume on William and Kate saying they were the ones who told me to wear it. They laughed hysterically. They thought it was amazing. But I had to take all the bad press over it. He can't even get over the little digs. OK, here's here's a story about when they were both in the military together. They gave a joint interview. And he says during this interview, Willie, which is what he calls his brother, griped endlessly about my habits. Harry's a slob. Harry snores. I turned and gave him a look. Was he joking? I cleaned up after myself and I didn't snore. Besides, our rooms were separated by thick walls. So even if I did, there was no way he heard.

The reporters were having fits of giggles about it all. But I cut in. Lies. Lies. That only made them laugh harder. Willie, too. Now, he says, I can't help but wonder if there wasn't something else at play. I was training to get to the front lines, the same place Willie had been training to get, but the palace had scuttled his plans. The spare? Sure. Let him run around on a battlefield like a chicken with his head cut off. It's what he likes. But the air? No. So Willie was now training to be a search and rescue pilot and perhaps feeling quietly frustrated about it. He was jealous of him. He was jealous of the spare because he got to do all the fun things. This is what brothers do to each other. He needed another brother. If I could list for you all the things that my brother has said about me, it's kind of a brother's job to toughen you up,

whether you're a little brother or a little sister. That's another story he tells about how in 2015, he got a little agoraphobic. He had had some panic attacks. He was giving a speech and he said he was nervous. And Willie came up to me backstage laughing, Harold, look at you. You're drenched because he'd been sweating. I couldn't fathom his reaction. Him of all people. He'd been present for my very first panic attack. With Kate, I couldn't imagine how he could be so insensitive. Insensitive or taking a different path to try to toughen you up and teach you to laugh at your lowest moments. Oh, come on. This is banter. This is great British banter. It is brotherly banter.

That is William's sense of humour. And to me, what was fascinating is at the time, Harry took it as banter, but now he has been captured by a cabal of Hollywood woke-topian yes people, right, who are friends with Meghan, and the whole psychotherapy community who want him to look back into his past and make himself a victim. And he's done that. But I actually think it is despicable the way that he has thrown William under the bus, because I know, Megan, the times when William was there

for Harry. And I'm talking dark moments, right? Because we know about the drug use in this book, by the way. Harry was breaking the law on multiple occasions. Now, whether you agree with that or disagree with that, whether you think drugs should be legalized or not, personally, I don't. I'm very anti-drugs, and I think actually sustained drug use over many decades has significantly impacted Harry's mental health. That is my opinion. But whenever you think about it, you've got at the time, the third in line to the throne, breaking the law constantly and consistently. What are you expecting the second in line for the throne,

Prince William, to do about that? He's not just going to allow it to happen. There were moments when he needed to give Harry some tough love because the tough love wasn't coming from Charles, who had this sense of guilt, really, about the fact that he was a single dad and he could never really cope with that. So actually, I think what he's done to William is despicable. And I know, by the way, from my reporting on William and Harry for many years now, William ain't going to forgive and forget. His red line, by the way, was not the personal attacks on him. It was the attacks on Kate, his wife. He found that completely despicable when Meghan went on international television

and claimed that Kate had made her cry. We have then seen more attacks on Kate in the Netflix documentary. But this book, William is presented as the villain of the piece. And I think it is disgusting. And Harry has to know that there are now permanent ramifications for his relationship with William. Because think about this, right? William is going to be king one day. And Harry has now tried to present to the world, he says for historical purposes, his brother as a violent, angry, insensitive bully. Now, if you speak to people who are friends with William,

that is not how they characterize the guy. I would say Harry drove him to frustration time and again. And I don't know about you, Megan, once I got to one of the final chapters in the book, because my God, it's long and it's dirty. And I felt like I had to take a wash after it. And William lunges at Harry because he's just so frustrated by his hypocrisy. You know, the fact that he's banging on about the way that the royal family briefed the press. And William says to him, hang on a moment. You've just gone and done a towel interview with Oprah Winfrey. What the hell are you talking about? And he lunges at Harry. And at that point, I have to say, and I don't usually ever support any form of physical violence, but at that point, Megan, rightly or wrongly, my sympathies were with William, not with Harry. Oh, me too. Harry needed a good ass kicking. Apparently he needed a second one because

he's still in the same place that he was back then. And let's not feel too sorry for Harry, who now has written a book being read by God knows how many people across the globe, ridiculing William's baldness, talking about his constant scowl that he had and revealing his very private thoughts about the death of his mother, about his stepmother, about his wife, Kate, and, you know, getting married, his conversations with the queen, all stuff. I mean, the nerve of this guy who's so protective of his privacy and sues all these papers saying, how dare you publish a private letter between a daughter and a father? Meanwhile, he's revealing conversations. One thing, he was a part of them. Maybe you assume

the risk in talking to Harry. I guess William did when he was 15. He should have foreseen this is what his brother was going to do. But it's quite another to tell your brother's private conversations with somebody else, right? Like he understands William's private thoughts about their mother. He has no business revealing those, but he does. And then he offers stories like this one, which I just found somewhat galling. Chapter 25. He's talking about how they go to a friend of his father's home. His dad has, King Charles has a friend. They go over and that guy has four boys and they would always play fight. And he says, I don't know how effective or skilled a fighter I was, but I always succeeded in providing enough diversion for Willie to get away. He would check his injuries, wipe his nose, right? It's

important to diminish him this way. Then jump straight back in. When the scrap finally ended for good, when we hobbled away together, I always felt such love for him and I sensed love in return, but also some embarrassment. I was half Willie's size, half his weight. I was the younger brother. He was supposed to save me, not the other way around. You tell me as a man, that is an intentional attempt to diminish the future king of England. He's trying to rub his nose in it. Oh, absolutely. And he does it all the time. I mean, it wasn't just criticising his baldness, Meghan. I think the thing that will really upset William is how he says that he was losing his resemblance to his mother, Princess

Diana. I mean, how nasty and cruel and actually quite evil is that? And when it comes to the invasion of privacy, as you rightly point out, remember, Harry and Meghan, against the wishes of the Queen, or the late Queen and King Charles, launched this legal campaign over the fact that Thomas Markle gave the letter that Meghan had sent to him and a newspaper published it. But in this book, Harry has actually published private text messages sent between Meghan and Kate. So he wasn't even in that conversation. I just think the hypocrisy is off the scale. And obviously what is so unfortunate and so unfair is that he knows, he knows that William and Kate and Charles and Camilla are powerless to respond.

They will not respond in an interview. They will not respond by courtiers and they will not respond legally. And Harry knew that. Indeed, we're not even seeing them respond without fingerprints on it in the press by, oh, no, it was this way. We're hearing nothing from them, which is working because apparently Harry's approval rating has gone down five points over the past six months or so. Meghan's is already lower than his. She's at the bottom of the barrel. But he has dinged up Prince William because his approval rating has gone down five points as well. So it's working somewhat on Prince William,

not on King Charles, who remains at the same level, according to YouGov. Can we spend a minute on the Kate Megan thing? Because. I think they've they've they've muddied the waters on that a fair amount. He in his book puts out what he claims is the actual text exchange between Megan and Kate. You just reference it. Mr. Prince of Privacy, you know, you should never do this, puts out a text exchange that he had no part in. And this is how he claims it went. He claims that Kate texted to Megan. This is Kate's nastiness. These are the examples. Number one, Megan asked her to share a lip gloss with her before trooping in the color or some one of those. And Kate was slow to hand it over. Well, hello. I would be slow to hand over my lip. I've been asked by my friends to hand over his lip. And I always say,

do you have any weird lip thing going on? Because I don't want to have to throw out my lip gloss. I trust truly like you can get somebody like a cold sore. I have no idea. Kate had no idea what Megan had or didn't have. And that's number one. And this is number two, that Kate before the wedding allegedly texted Megan. This is presented as like a quote, but we don't know. Charlotte's dress is too big, too long, too baggy. She cried when she tried it on at home. Megan, right. And I told you the tailor has been standing by since 8 a.m. here at Kensington Palace. Can you take Charlotte to have it altered as the other mums are doing? Response. No. All the dresses need to be remade. Megan. I'm not sure what else to say. If the dress doesn't fit,

then please take Charlotte to see AJ, the tailor. He's been waiting all day. Kate responds, fine. The horror. The horror. Okay, so what do you make of that text exchange and this new story about what actually made somebody cry? Apparently in response to this, Megan was in a ball crying on the floor. Tough it up, buttercup, but go ahead.

Well, I mean, as if she was. As if she was. This is completely made up. I mean, who saw Meghan sobbing? One person, apparently, Harry. Just like we're meant to believe that Meghan was suicidal throughout this time and that she was denied psychological help by Buckingham Palace. Again, a claim which personally, I don't believe, I don't think it stacks up personally. That's my view. So was Kate very stressed at the time? Yes, she'd just given birth. Was Megan very stressed at the time?

Yes, her father had just had a heart attack and was saying that he wasn't coming to her wedding. So both ladies were incredibly stressed and we understand that. But I think the crucial point and the critical point here, Meghan, is that they hated each other already by this point. The wedding was just the culmination of what had been a really bad relationship right from the start. And again, this is another one of those really critical factual inaccuracies from Harry. Because when William goes to see him to complain about Meghan being difficult and abrasive and rude, Harry says, oh, you've just got this from the media narrative, the press

narrative. But in fact, they had fallen out long before I ever broke the story of Kate and Meghan not going on, because that was in November 2018. That was the first time that it had been written credibly anywhere in the world that Meghan and Kate had fallen out. And that falling out was actually about the way that Meghan was speaking to staff at Kensington Palace. But to be honest, there were so many times reading this book, Meghan, when I just thought, my God, this is Meghan Markle speaking. This is not Harry speaking. This is Meghan Markle speaking. I'll give you an example, right? Because Harry talks about page three girls and he loved page three, right? I don't know if you know about page three, Meghan, but I'll explain. It was the Sun newspaper. I used to work on page three. They would have a topless picture. It was a

legendary thing in the Sun. It had gone back years. And when Harry was serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, he very famously used to read the Sun because he loved page three so much. And he's going on a date with a page three girl. Now, after page three is mentioned in brackets, there is this line. That was the accepted misogynistic objectifying term for young women featured each day on page three of Rupert Murdoch's The Sun. Well, I'm sorry, and sue me if I'm wrong, that was not written by Prince Harry, that was written by Meghan Markle. And I had a fascinating conversation the other day, Meghan, where a very credible source told me that the manuscript, Harry's manuscript,

was covered, completely littered with Meghan's notes. And you know, what was particularly annoying to the publishers is that she had made all of these notes in her annoying calligraphy. She's obsessed with writing everything in her calligraphy. So this book is not just Harry's book. So much harry's experience now has been funneled through ms markle and i think that's very telling especially when it comes to uh these you know paragraphs about kate and the four that's an amazing point i wanted to make me amazing harry actually concedes that uh there were staff sobbing in the office. Now, he says it's because of this war going on, Team Sussex versus Team Cambridge. Well, actually, you speak to the staff members,

they don't say it's because of that. They say they were sobbing because of alleged bullying by Ms. Markle. That's cover. And it's interesting how he goes right up to the edge of these stories. He admits just enough to offer an alternate version, but then pivots away, you know, like, oh, here's another possibility. They were crying because of the war. And and, you know, all the reporting like yours, which has proven credible. There was Mexit says it was for a very different reason.

He does it to on Tiara Gate. Another thing I know you know about and I'm going to tell you, I'm going to read for the audience what he's now saying actually happened with Tiara Gate and we'll ask Dan what the truth is right after this. Don't go away. You and others reported on how Megan was allegedly shown a couple of tiaras by the queen in advance of the wedding. She chose one and the advisor said, maybe not that one, maybe another one or something like that. I can't remember. Wait, let me correct it. It was that she wanted to try on the tiara outside of the castle, right?

And she was told no. And that Harry weighed in saying what Meghan wants, Meghan gets. All right, here's what he says. He denies that he angrily told Angela Kelly, his grandmother's dresser, what Meghan wants, Meghan gets. Says shortly before the wedding in May 2018, the Queen reached out to the couple offering Meghan access to her collection of tiaras. She was invited to Buckingham Palace to try them on. Do come over, the queen said, he remembers. It was an extraordinary morning. The queen was standing alongside a jewelry expert who knew the history of each stone in the royal collection. Also in the room was the queen's confidant, Angela Kelly. He says the queen asked

Megan to view five stunning tiaras, including one with emeralds and another with aquamarines. The queen told Megan, tiaras suit you. After Meghan chose one, the queen advised her to try the piece on with her hairdresser before the wedding day. But Harry says when he tried to contact Angela Kelly later to get a hold of the tiara for the practice session, the dresser did not respond. When he finally tracked her down, Miss Kelly told him

taking the tiara out of the palace for an appointment with Meghan's hairdresser cannot be done because it would require an orderly and a police officer to guard it. Harry, who admits to being exasperated, says Miss Kelly eventually appeared out of thin air since the resentment at Kensington Palace to make him sign a release before handing over the tiara. He writes, quote, She fixed me with a look that made me shiver. I could read in her face a clear warning. This isn't over. So here again, he seems to be admitting he obviously upset the queen's dresser. I don't know how you do that. I just be grateful and do what they tell you to do on the tiara. But clearly he angered her. And now he's basically saying that nothing he didn't say that line and this much ado was made over nothing. She was the queen's dresser, but she was also

so much more than that, Meghan. She was her closest ally, her closest confidant. They had become such firm friends that the queen, in quite an unprecedented move, allowed Angela Kelly to publish a number of books about her work for the Queen, which just doesn't happen right. So Angela Kelly was almost like another daughter for the Queen. That is how close they were. And Angela Kelly was often used by the Queen because the Queen sometimes can't say things she really wants to say, right? So who do you get to say them? Top old bird Angela

Kelly, who comes from good working class Liverpool stock and isn't afraid to stand up to someone like Prince Harry. So that is the context. But when it actually comes to my reporting on Tiara Gate, I think Harry is being incredibly disingenuous because what he's trying to do is use a diversion tactic here by commenting on the very minor parts of the story and ignoring the main thrust of what my revelation was. And the revelation was that the Queen had to phone up Prince Harry and tell him that the way that Meghan was treating staff at Buckingham Palace was inappropriate. And that was the first time that there had been any indication that Meghan was not behaving appropriately behind the scenes. And you have to realise that it is quite unprecedented and quite extraordinary for the Queen to actually personally intervene. And we know what happened,

don't we? We know what happened. Angela Kelly was reporting back everything to the Queen. She was reporting back the way that Meghan was speaking to the staff. She was reporting back the way that Harry was making all of these demands. I was never the reporter to reveal the what Megan wants, Megan gets line. But I will tell you, the man who did is one of the most credible and experienced royal journalists of his generation. And he's King Charles' biographer. And I do not believe that he would ever have reported that line, Megan, if it wasn't said. Robert Jobson. Yeah, Jobson.

Yes. Well, of course. And it does sound like him. If you read this book, I mean, he does nothing other than whine, self-aggrandize, color himself as, you know, as I said, the stallion who saves people. I mean, I can hear him saying that, whereas I will be honest, I couldn't before I read this book. Now, having read the book, I like him less. I see him more clearly and I could hear him saying that. One of the other things is the acknowledgements. The acknowledgements thank james corden oprah um chris martin of coldplay

tyler perry okay i get that one not king charles not prince william of course not even the queen that that last one was shocking to me i know know, but also, what about his extended relatives? What about Princess Anne, who was the only person who actually remained at Balmoral Castle after the late Queen's death to welcome Prince Harry and to usher him into the room where the Queen was lying dead? Meghan, Prince William and Charles and Camilla, they had all scuppered. They didn't even want to see Harry.

That is how bad relations had got. Anne waited there, but no acknowledgement for his aunt. And yeah, the fact that the queen wasn't acknowledged is just sick. But by the way, the queen would be so disappointed with harry because you know he's also come for her sister princess margaret he hates really about her in the book which is just unbelievable and she would find it absolutely unforgivable that he has written word for word the private conversation that the Queen had with Harry when he asked for permission to marry Meghan. And he is throwing a hell of a lot of shade at the Queen because,

let's be honest, when you read the transcript, it's made very clear that the Queen wasn't all too keen on this marriage. She wasn't all too keen on this union. She said, well, I'm going to have to say yes, but I don't particularly want to. That was the underlying message that you got. But the point is, you just don't do that. You just don't release transcripts of conversations with the late Queen if you're a member of the royal family. But she would have been so angry at Harry

for the way that he came for Princess Margaret. And I think it also shows a real lack of understanding because remember, Margaret was the spare as well. She had had a really troubled life and there were probably lots of reasons why she wasn't particularly polite to him at that time. Good point. We talked about some of this on your show last night. The reviews have not been good. New York Times book review calling it embittered over them, them overexposed, boring, cringy, catty, tiresome, daily beast, leftist online site, petty, mean spirited, hypocritical, tawdry, petulant, spoiled, babyish, vindictive, a betrayal of his family. I could go on. So the reviews have not been particularly kind. Nonetheless, and I don't know if this is true or not, there's reporting in the Daily Mail, Dan, that they're still going to be invited to King Charles' coronation. Is that true? It is true. It's absolutely true. And I've done a lot of reporting on Charles' headspace around

this. I personally don't agree with it, but just to give you some understanding about where he's at. He believes that this feud with Harry will be resolved. He is absolutely determined that he will not negatively brief against his own son. He is making it very clear that he's not angry. He is saddened. I think the only slight shift in position possibly will come if Harry continues to

attack Camilla, the Queen Consort, because that has always been Charles's red line. What I would say is that even though Harry will be invited to the coronation, I'm certain he'll attend, by the way, because remember, it's only Harry and Meghan's proximity to these sorts of major royal events that give them the kudos to keep being paid big money by the likes of Netflix. So I think he will attend, but he will not have a formal role. And I think there's a serious risk that he will be booed and greeted very negatively and coldly by the British public, which I believe he now deserves after this book. It's treacherous. It is absolutely treacherous.

He has not just betrayed the royal family. He's betrayed his country. We sat next to each other for coverage of the wedding when I was at NBC. And I want to come over there and sit next to you on GB News for coverage of the coronation. And I will personally boo him. Oh my goodness, we've got to do that, don't we, Megan? You've got to come back to London for the coronation. I will get it going.

You're too classy, but I'll do it. Dan, so fun talking to you. Thank you so much for the great information. A pleasure as always. Thank you, Megan. Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.