January 13, 2023 • 19 mins
Larry and Thomas discuss The new Prince Harry biography called "Spare", the 60 Minutes interview with him, and the trash talk problems that might spill over from the dirty laundry revealed. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Happy New Year, fellow entertainment brotherYes, Happy new Year. It has
been a while, it's been awhile, too long, too long,
had a great holiday. I'm lookingforward to twenty twenty three. Yes,
me too. And there are toomany, many good stories. Oh my
god, it can't handle it.In particular the most unavoidable story of the
day, then maybe the week.Yeah, Prince Harry burning down the royal
(00:21):
family, burning down the house.Yeah, totally. There's a lot to
talk about here, from both akind of like personal familial standpoint, a
journalistic standpoint, and even a legalstandpoint that may not be obvious because we're
not obviously in the UK, butquestions about what might arise here since it
looks like all bets are off asto what's going on. We'll talk about
(00:42):
that maybe a little awards show.Welcome to twenty twenty three. We are
the Entertainment Brothers, and now theEntertainment Brothers. Here's Larry Hackett and Thomas
(01:03):
Valentino. So welcome back for anotheryear of the Entertainment Brothers. I'm Larry
Hackett, I'm Thomas Valentine is infact Thomas Valentino. Let's dive right in
the Prince Harry story. So there'sa new biography. It's called Spare It's
about his life. There is also, of course, this comes on the
heels of the Netflix mini series thatwas on about a month ago. He
(01:26):
has been on it seems every televisionshow out there at late night av sixty
minutes. He was on a Britishtelevision show, which of course we all
got the results of. It isa fascinating take. He clearly is trying
to boil the ocean, which Ithink is a mistake to some degree.
So we have his reaction to hismother's death understandable. We have his reaction
(01:47):
to his father's kind of coldness andhis father's relationship with Camilla. We have
his relationship with his brother and byextension, his sister in law, and
everybody's relationship with him and Meagan.There's a lot going on here. We're
not going to retell all the differentstories. You can find those out there,
but from what we do, whichis sort of analyze in the kind
of media play here and the legalplay, there's some interesting things here.
(02:12):
The most damaging thing I think hesaid about is not the fact that his
brother grabbed him by the collar andhis brother was mad at him, and
his brother doesn't really like his wife. That goes on in every single family.
Absolutely, there's nothing new about that. It's what makes it kind of
tasty saying that, but it's whathumanizes them exactly. The part that makes
it different is among the claims thathe's made regarding the manipulation of the various
(02:36):
pr agencies for each member of thefamily and how they use the British press
to get over on one another.That's not something most families are familiar with,
and how that works. The mostdamaging thing he said, I believe
it was on sixteen Minutes this weekwhen he basically said that Camilla Parker bulls,
then he kind of was amplifying what'sin the book. Uses her relationship
(02:57):
with the press to go forward andget a better reputation at the expense of
other family members. He reminds usthat when Diana was alive, when his
mother was alive, Kimilla was theother woman. She clearly didn't have the
kind of glamour and possessed that Dianahad. Then, when Diana died,
after having basically named Camilla as thethird person in this marriage, she had
(03:20):
a huge reclamation renovation project in frontof her. She was the wicked woman
who had ruined this marriage and tosome extent, by extension, perhaps contributed
to the death of Diana. Howevercrazy they may have sounded. So what
she did, according to Harry,was commenced a relationship with the British tabloids
to improve her relationship, allow herto get married and become the Queen consort.
(03:44):
And the only way to do thatwas and I know how to I
know how this works. I mean, the editor of a gossip column is
any grade information? Yes, Now, I think the idea that she said
that there was a bad story abouther, and she called some tabloid editor
on that afternoon and say, pleasedon't run that, run this instead about
Harry or William is too simple andnot how it works. How it works
(04:06):
is she probably had lunch with sometabloid editors and expressed to them her long
view or her long term plan asto what she was looking for in terms
of rehabilitating herself. She was inlove with Charles, and she wanted to
life with Charles, and she knewshe had to deal with these newspapers,
and in exchange, she became aconfidante of these newspapers. And while it
(04:29):
wasn't tit for tat, she clearlyknew that her own reputation was going to
depend on her approachability to these newspapers. I don't think that's out of the
question. I know people in thisworld, and I know for a fact
of one particular story of a tabloideditor who had a very close relationship with
her. Now, the person whotold me the story didn't tell me that
(04:49):
he knew any stories in particular.But the idea that these royals don't talk
to these tabloid editors clearly is afalsehood. They do. All that said,
I think what Harry needs to dois to name We need names in
places and times. Woo right,talking about the British press being bad to
you, it starts to get alittle soft and it gets a little dull.
(05:10):
You need to say, Camilla onthis day did this to me,
and that I think would make thestory, would advance the story. Now,
if you did that, there mightbe legal questions involved here because you
and I have talked about the notionof defamation and what be going on here.
He is trashing everybody in sight.Yeah, and you have to think
that he knows that the stoicism ofthe royal family will be put in place
here and they're not going to sayanything. They're going to trash them in
(05:32):
the papers like they've been doing.But the idea that some member of the
family is going to come at himin a court of law seems far fetched.
However, if these guys were justnamed Bill and Harry and they lived
in des Moines, right, whatdo you think they can do? What
could William do or Camilla do aboutwhat Harry has written about them? Well,
just like in depth be heard,right, and we saw that there
(05:54):
could be a case for defamation here, and let's put their point out depth
be heard, depth lost in theright but interestingly right right right. So
let's just say, you know,it's Bill and Harry and we're in the
US, and it's like, youknow what, Harry, you're damaging my
reputation severely. It's having consequences inmy career and in the public eye,
(06:16):
and therefore I'm going to sue youfor defamation. Why not? Why not?
Why not? And why not?You know? I mean here's the
thing too, Yes, they're Britishand they live in the UK, but
we're talking about this, right,the book was published in the United States,
correct do you think? And I'mgonna put you on the spot a
little bit legally, And I understandif you don't know the answer to this.
(06:38):
But Kimilla Parker Balls might live inthe UK. But just like Johnny
Depp, an American citizen sued inthe UK over something written in the UK,
could Camilla or William sue in theUnited States about a book published in
the United States? They I thinkthey potentially could. There would be some
legal hurdles to overcome, some proceduralthings where they'd have to show that they
(06:59):
have a connection to the United States, which I don't think would be very
difficulty, have assets and things ofthat nature. So it's conceivable, right,
It's conceivable. You know, Ilook at this as first, did
you believe because what you're saying isHarry needs to put forth more specific evidence
(07:21):
if that's what he wants to do. I mean, if you're going to
go out and make these claims,right, and you're trying to, you
know, as he has said repeatedly, end this relationship, this toxic,
symbiotic relationship between members of the pressoffices of the respective royal families and the
papers if he wants to end thator at least expose it. The idea
(07:41):
of just sort of saying there's arelationship isn't good enough, right because the
papers over there aren't going to coverit because he's implicating them. But if
you say, on this day,so and so made a phone call to
so and so, and I knowabout that, and you just get specific,
that's better. I mean, ifwhat he's saying is true, there
are people out there who know verywell what happened because they were involved in
(08:03):
it. Right. It seems tome, whether he likes it or not,
his message and his crusade here isto end the mystery around the royal
family. Correct. That's a verydangerous thing to do, yes, I
mean, the reason we all watchthe Crown is that we kind of know
it's fake, or we kind ofknow that we don't really know what's going
on, but we let somebody embroideronto it conversations and specific situations which we
(08:24):
don't know if they're true. Wedon't care, because the fact of the
matter is what little we do knowallows us to fill in the blanks.
He is filling in all the blanks, and he's filling it in with stuff
that's not really that attractive. He'sfilling it in with stuff that makes them
look ordinary and petulant and tires him. And he's killing the mystery and the
romance that maybe what he wants todo and down the road. I think,
(08:48):
while I think that he's going totake some abuse for kind of like
oversharing, I think there's going tobe damage on the family because suddenly the
mystery around them isn't there anymore.The queen famously was adored because what did
you know about her? Nothing right? Nothing right? You didn't know what
she thought. Yes, you watchedHelen Mirren and you watched Claire Foy depict
(09:09):
her on these movies. Yeah,but you didn't really know if that's what
she was lying correct. He's goingin the opposite direction the idea that you
now know William gets mad and getsangry and that they fight over bridesmaid's gowns.
It's juicy, but it's not verysatisfying. I think in an interesting
way to your point, he's pickingup where his mother left off. He's
(09:30):
taken it to the next level.He's saying, oh yeah, not only
is there a third person, butguess what that third person is doing things
to damage me without specific evidence,which, by the way, he was
much better coached for Anderson Cooper thanhe was for Oprah. You could see
he was going word for word thathe had been through this interview a million
(09:54):
times. And if he starts togo out and names specific if people,
then I do think that that's evenmore clearly because when you take the vagueness
away and you say, well,this particular person was doing this in leaks
something right to someone else and theother person was you know, printing it
(10:15):
or publishing it right, Okay,that's even more specific and opens the door
more for defamation. I think that'swhy he's being very very vague about it,
because he asked to be. It'sinteresting, Yeah, so you think
he's a little He may actually beworried about stepping on a legal mindful I
think he was advised by a teamof ten attorneys what to say and what
(10:35):
not to say, and he wasreally really careful about not about kind of
putting it out there, but notcompletely going there absolutely, And if I
was advising him, I would saythe exact same thing. Okay, get
it off your chest make it yourpersonal therapy session, which is kind of
like what he's doing right and then, but you know, legally watch out
(10:58):
for this and watch out for that, not just with regard to the leaking,
but with regard to the entire AndersonCooper interview. He was being careful
of all the landmines was very obviousto me, very interesting. Yeah,
I mean obviously it's you know,the chances though the royal family's suing him
are microscopic, if not just yeah, but it is an interesting kind of
(11:20):
if you know, counter factor.It's a concept, it really is.
It's a concept, it really is. I don't know what happens going forward.
I mean I think, like Isaid, you know, once you
have literally emptied the dirty laundry basketonto the floor and gone through it and
smelled every item there, what's left, Yeah, you know what's left?
This idea of a rapprochemont just soundswell. I mean, it's all families.
(11:41):
It can always happen, Oh,absolutely, it can always happen.
Absolutely, But it seems a longway down the road. And he's obviously
become they've both become he and MeganPrize in the UK, but We'll see
what happens. I'm really kind offascinated about what happens. Look that said,
if he's made the amount of moneypeople are talking about for the book
and the Netflix series, nothing happento happen. He can live the way
he wants to. He may haveto clean the mud out of his house
(12:03):
in Montecito because of the mudslides thatare going on there, right correct,
or have his landscapers do it exactlyhis crew. But it's an interesting story,
Like I said, from a mediastandpoint in particular, you know,
because he is attacking the British press, they're clearly not going to be very
aggressive in finding out who it waswho told them this and that about what
happens. Let's talk about damage.Yeah, Okay, correct me if I'm
(12:28):
wrong. His dad was married tohis mother obviously, and was having an
affair while he was married, andthen Diana comes out and says, hey,
everybody guess what. He's having anaffair and it's publicly acknowledged. I
mean, no one's going to disputeit now right at this point in time.
Did that do any damage whatsoever tothe monarchy in any way? Did
(12:54):
I miss something here? No,it didn't, and I'll tell you why,
because the queen was above it,all right, Okay. On the
top of it was the Queen,in her regal silence, trying to like
reign in the family people who againcould see her as being most the leader
of the royal family and also theleader of her own family. Right,
so they gave her, they cuther a break. The issue now is
(13:15):
that the king, yes, thehead, is a player in this story.
The queen was never a player inthat story. Okay, good point.
She was at a regal remove.Right. You don't have that with
Charles now, because you have preciselyall the things that happened during that marriage
and the affair and the revelations abouttelephone calls and whatnot. You know about
(13:35):
his petulance and about his jealousy overthe attention that Diana got, and what
it sounds like the attention that Meganand Harry get, right. I mean,
these people have very very thin skins. I will say this. You
raised Diana. There was an essayby Patti Davis in The Times over the
weekend, Patty Davis being the daughterof Ronald Reagan, of course, and
she wrote a very famous Tellall bookduring the Reagan administration, trashing her father
(13:58):
and Nancy Reagan, who I believewas her stepmother. In this essay that
she wrote, she said she regretteddoing that, and if she could have
given any advice to Harry, itwould have been, don't do this.
Don't do it in her in heradulthood and her maturity. Thing not a
good idea. I wonder whether ornot Diana would have had the same feeling.
I think obviously Diana's no way Dianawould accountenanced Harry treshing his brother,
(14:22):
her other son, right, Butshe may have also said, you know
that interview I gave to Martin Bisher, putting aside the fact that Bisher lied
to her and kind of like,you know, coaxed her into doing it
under false pretense. The things thatI said I shouldn't have done in public.
But yeah, we'll never know becauseshe's not with us. But it's
an interesting, again, notion abouthow she might have felt about what's going
on. Now. I agree.I agree. I think I've said before
(14:45):
that I think if she were talkingto Harry, she would say not to
go so far right where you've goneright? Okay, she had to do
what she had to do. Ibelieve for different reasons. Okay, at
the time, I don't think heneeded to go as far as he's going.
And guess what, let's go backto this idea of damage and everything
(15:07):
else, and you know what's knowndamage? Yeah, or emotional damage or
damage to your image and reputation?Right? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Isn't the king about to be coronatedsoon? Yeah? Okay, So there's
gonna be this majestic display and theking is gonna be coronated, And is
(15:31):
some of what he's done in thepast going to get swept under the rug
because of the magnificence of the factthat he's now the king. And then
there's little Harry in the corner withhis book, waving his book. I
think people are going to say,you know what, Harry, we don't
care. I think they view himas a spoiled bratt. And certainly,
(15:54):
if you go on Twitter, that'swhat the commentary is. Fine, But
so let me take the opposite tackof But I was just saying, go
for it. Okay, let's rememberso whenever Harry or Megan talk, at
least in the past before this book, and before the real change, it
would be Harry and Megan are goingto Africa to do their you know,
Invictus games, or they're going tothere are William and cad are going to
Africa to talk about rhinos, right, and then the deal that's made is
(16:18):
that they talk to the reporter aboutrhinos and about their efforts to save African
wildlife. And then they finally geta couple of questions in about the royal
family about this, and that's whatthe press care about. What you're saying
is partially correct, which is that, yes, the pomp and circumstance,
whether it's going to be at thecoronation or clearly about the queen's funeral,
is one thing. It's very hardto separate that from the soap opera.
(16:41):
The fact of the matter is there'sgoing to be more attention to the Caro
nation now, precisely because of whatHarry has done. Is he going to
go, is he not going togo? If he does go, what's
it going to be like if hedoesn't go, what's Charl's going to think?
You can't separate the two, right, We don't really care about the
fact that the queen or the kingnow goes and opens some factory in Leeds.
(17:03):
Nobody cares. Okay, they careabout the soap opera, right,
so you can't separate that. Peopleget the excuse is that we have the
royal family to go open airports andfactories and children's hospitals, but who cares.
Nobody. It's the soap opera thatwe care about. But it is
the soap opera that feeds the attentionon they're saving the wildlife or they're saving
(17:25):
on the things. So they're kindof in this terrible bind. They may
hate the British press, and Harrymay rail about the way he's been treated,
but the worst thing that could happento them is that no one pays
attention and then they're just people whodon't do anything and nobody cares. And
I agree what happens. The Britishpublic may say, why do we have
these folks? Now? They're goingto do that now because they're gonna go
(17:47):
this is embarrassing and the fact thatwe pay money to watch this soap opera
is awful. But I think alot of people are going to say,
we've been doing that for a longtime, and whether it was the Duke
of Windsor's abdication in the nineteen thirties, or Queen Victoria and or Children and
Whip. It's also pop, right, Shakespeare is so popera? Yes,
yes, So what's Hamlet? TheHamlet's a gay Hamlet's a guy whose father
(18:11):
dies and he and his mother remarriedsomebody. I mean, come on,
there's no there's no. They didnot leave room for a second and third
act. There's no place to gohere. So we've already seen the first
episode. The only thing we cando is watch it again and again and
again, the way I watched Godfatherand Soprano. Okay, I will admit
(18:32):
that I don't have the imagination toimagine these next acts, but there may
be one, and that's why peoplekeep paying attention. Okay, okay,
this is an abbreviated version as westart to new it is, but you
know what, it's still a goodone. We took a topic that's that's
in center in the news, correct, and that's what we do. It's
good to be back, yes,it is. Where the entertainment brothers follow
(18:53):
us, like us, Tell yourfriends about us. We will be back
soon. That's to everyone. Intwenty three for a happy, healthy,
and blessed New Year. Cheerio,
Happy New Year, fellow entertainment brotherYes, Happy new Year. It has
been a while, it's been awhile, too long, too long,
had a great holiday. I'm lookingforward to twenty twenty three. Yes,
me too. And there are toomany, many good stories. Oh my
god, it can't handle it.In particular the most unavoidable story of the
day, then maybe the week.Yeah, Prince Harry burning down the royal
(00:21):
family, burning down the house.Yeah, totally. There's a lot to
talk about here, from both akind of like personal familial standpoint, a
journalistic standpoint, and even a legalstandpoint that may not be obvious because we're
not obviously in the UK, butquestions about what might arise here since it
looks like all bets are off asto what's going on. We'll talk about
(00:42):
that maybe a little awards show.Welcome to twenty twenty three. We are
the Entertainment Brothers, and now theEntertainment Brothers. Here's Larry Hackett and Thomas
(01:03):
Valentino. So welcome back for anotheryear of the Entertainment Brothers. I'm Larry
Hackett, I'm Thomas Valentine is infact Thomas Valentino. Let's dive right in
the Prince Harry story. So there'sa new biography. It's called Spare It's
about his life. There is also, of course, this comes on the
heels of the Netflix mini series thatwas on about a month ago. He
(01:26):
has been on it seems every televisionshow out there at late night av sixty
minutes. He was on a Britishtelevision show, which of course we all
got the results of. It isa fascinating take. He clearly is trying
to boil the ocean, which Ithink is a mistake to some degree.
So we have his reaction to hismother's death understandable. We have his reaction
(01:47):
to his father's kind of coldness andhis father's relationship with Camilla. We have
his relationship with his brother and byextension, his sister in law, and
everybody's relationship with him and Meagan.There's a lot going on here. We're
not going to retell all the differentstories. You can find those out there,
but from what we do, whichis sort of analyze in the kind
of media play here and the legalplay, there's some interesting things here.
(02:12):
The most damaging thing I think hesaid about is not the fact that his
brother grabbed him by the collar andhis brother was mad at him, and
his brother doesn't really like his wife. That goes on in every single family.
Absolutely, there's nothing new about that. It's what makes it kind of
tasty saying that, but it's whathumanizes them exactly. The part that makes
it different is among the claims thathe's made regarding the manipulation of the various
(02:36):
pr agencies for each member of thefamily and how they use the British press
to get over on one another.That's not something most families are familiar with,
and how that works. The mostdamaging thing he said, I believe
it was on sixteen Minutes this weekwhen he basically said that Camilla Parker bulls,
then he kind of was amplifying what'sin the book. Uses her relationship
(02:57):
with the press to go forward andget a better reputation at the expense of
other family members. He reminds usthat when Diana was alive, when his
mother was alive, Kimilla was theother woman. She clearly didn't have the
kind of glamour and possessed that Dianahad. Then, when Diana died,
after having basically named Camilla as thethird person in this marriage, she had
(03:20):
a huge reclamation renovation project in frontof her. She was the wicked woman
who had ruined this marriage and tosome extent, by extension, perhaps contributed
to the death of Diana. Howevercrazy they may have sounded. So what
she did, according to Harry,was commenced a relationship with the British tabloids
to improve her relationship, allow herto get married and become the Queen consort.
(03:44):
And the only way to do thatwas and I know how to I
know how this works. I mean, the editor of a gossip column is
any grade information? Yes, Now, I think the idea that she said
that there was a bad story abouther, and she called some tabloid editor
on that afternoon and say, pleasedon't run that, run this instead about
Harry or William is too simple andnot how it works. How it works
(04:06):
is she probably had lunch with sometabloid editors and expressed to them her long
view or her long term plan asto what she was looking for in terms
of rehabilitating herself. She was inlove with Charles, and she wanted to
life with Charles, and she knewshe had to deal with these newspapers,
and in exchange, she became aconfidante of these newspapers. And while it
(04:29):
wasn't tit for tat, she clearlyknew that her own reputation was going to
depend on her approachability to these newspapers. I don't think that's out of the
question. I know people in thisworld, and I know for a fact
of one particular story of a tabloideditor who had a very close relationship with
her. Now, the person whotold me the story didn't tell me that
(04:49):
he knew any stories in particular.But the idea that these royals don't talk
to these tabloid editors clearly is afalsehood. They do. All that said,
I think what Harry needs to dois to name We need names in
places and times. Woo right,talking about the British press being bad to
you, it starts to get alittle soft and it gets a little dull.
(05:10):
You need to say, Camilla onthis day did this to me,
and that I think would make thestory, would advance the story. Now,
if you did that, there mightbe legal questions involved here because you
and I have talked about the notionof defamation and what be going on here.
He is trashing everybody in sight.Yeah, and you have to think
that he knows that the stoicism ofthe royal family will be put in place
here and they're not going to sayanything. They're going to trash them in
(05:32):
the papers like they've been doing.But the idea that some member of the
family is going to come at himin a court of law seems far fetched.
However, if these guys were justnamed Bill and Harry and they lived
in des Moines, right, whatdo you think they can do? What
could William do or Camilla do aboutwhat Harry has written about them? Well,
just like in depth be heard,right, and we saw that there
(05:54):
could be a case for defamation here, and let's put their point out depth
be heard, depth lost in theright but interestingly right right right. So
let's just say, you know,it's Bill and Harry and we're in the
US, and it's like, youknow what, Harry, you're damaging my
reputation severely. It's having consequences inmy career and in the public eye,
(06:16):
and therefore I'm going to sue youfor defamation. Why not? Why not?
Why not? And why not?You know? I mean here's the
thing too, Yes, they're Britishand they live in the UK, but
we're talking about this, right,the book was published in the United States,
correct do you think? And I'mgonna put you on the spot a
little bit legally, And I understandif you don't know the answer to this.
(06:38):
But Kimilla Parker Balls might live inthe UK. But just like Johnny
Depp, an American citizen sued inthe UK over something written in the UK,
could Camilla or William sue in theUnited States about a book published in
the United States? They I thinkthey potentially could. There would be some
legal hurdles to overcome, some proceduralthings where they'd have to show that they
(06:59):
have a connection to the United States, which I don't think would be very
difficulty, have assets and things ofthat nature. So it's conceivable, right,
It's conceivable. You know, Ilook at this as first, did
you believe because what you're saying isHarry needs to put forth more specific evidence
(07:21):
if that's what he wants to do. I mean, if you're going to
go out and make these claims,right, and you're trying to, you
know, as he has said repeatedly, end this relationship, this toxic,
symbiotic relationship between members of the pressoffices of the respective royal families and the
papers if he wants to end thator at least expose it. The idea
(07:41):
of just sort of saying there's arelationship isn't good enough, right because the
papers over there aren't going to coverit because he's implicating them. But if
you say, on this day,so and so made a phone call to
so and so, and I knowabout that, and you just get specific,
that's better. I mean, ifwhat he's saying is true, there
are people out there who know verywell what happened because they were involved in
(08:03):
it. Right. It seems tome, whether he likes it or not,
his message and his crusade here isto end the mystery around the royal
family. Correct. That's a verydangerous thing to do, yes, I
mean, the reason we all watchthe Crown is that we kind of know
it's fake, or we kind ofknow that we don't really know what's going
on, but we let somebody embroideronto it conversations and specific situations which we
(08:24):
don't know if they're true. Wedon't care, because the fact of the
matter is what little we do knowallows us to fill in the blanks.
He is filling in all the blanks, and he's filling it in with stuff
that's not really that attractive. He'sfilling it in with stuff that makes them
look ordinary and petulant and tires him. And he's killing the mystery and the
romance that maybe what he wants todo and down the road. I think,
(08:48):
while I think that he's going totake some abuse for kind of like
oversharing, I think there's going tobe damage on the family because suddenly the
mystery around them isn't there anymore.The queen famously was adored because what did
you know about her? Nothing right? Nothing right? You didn't know what
she thought. Yes, you watchedHelen Mirren and you watched Claire Foy depict
(09:09):
her on these movies. Yeah,but you didn't really know if that's what
she was lying correct. He's goingin the opposite direction the idea that you
now know William gets mad and getsangry and that they fight over bridesmaid's gowns.
It's juicy, but it's not verysatisfying. I think in an interesting
way to your point, he's pickingup where his mother left off. He's
(09:30):
taken it to the next level.He's saying, oh yeah, not only
is there a third person, butguess what that third person is doing things
to damage me without specific evidence,which, by the way, he was
much better coached for Anderson Cooper thanhe was for Oprah. You could see
he was going word for word thathe had been through this interview a million
(09:54):
times. And if he starts togo out and names specific if people,
then I do think that that's evenmore clearly because when you take the vagueness
away and you say, well,this particular person was doing this in leaks
something right to someone else and theother person was you know, printing it
(10:15):
or publishing it right, Okay,that's even more specific and opens the door
more for defamation. I think that'swhy he's being very very vague about it,
because he asked to be. It'sinteresting, Yeah, so you think
he's a little He may actually beworried about stepping on a legal mindful I
think he was advised by a teamof ten attorneys what to say and what
(10:35):
not to say, and he wasreally really careful about not about kind of
putting it out there, but notcompletely going there absolutely, And if I
was advising him, I would saythe exact same thing. Okay, get
it off your chest make it yourpersonal therapy session, which is kind of
like what he's doing right and then, but you know, legally watch out
(10:58):
for this and watch out for that, not just with regard to the leaking,
but with regard to the entire AndersonCooper interview. He was being careful
of all the landmines was very obviousto me, very interesting. Yeah,
I mean obviously it's you know,the chances though the royal family's suing him
are microscopic, if not just yeah, but it is an interesting kind of
(11:20):
if you know, counter factor.It's a concept, it really is.
It's a concept, it really is. I don't know what happens going forward.
I mean I think, like Isaid, you know, once you
have literally emptied the dirty laundry basketonto the floor and gone through it and
smelled every item there, what's left, Yeah, you know what's left?
This idea of a rapprochemont just soundswell. I mean, it's all families.
(11:41):
It can always happen, Oh,absolutely, it can always happen.
Absolutely, But it seems a longway down the road. And he's obviously
become they've both become he and MeganPrize in the UK, but We'll see
what happens. I'm really kind offascinated about what happens. Look that said,
if he's made the amount of moneypeople are talking about for the book
and the Netflix series, nothing happento happen. He can live the way
he wants to. He may haveto clean the mud out of his house
(12:03):
in Montecito because of the mudslides thatare going on there, right correct,
or have his landscapers do it exactlyhis crew. But it's an interesting story,
Like I said, from a mediastandpoint in particular, you know,
because he is attacking the British press, they're clearly not going to be very
aggressive in finding out who it waswho told them this and that about what
happens. Let's talk about damage.Yeah, Okay, correct me if I'm
(12:28):
wrong. His dad was married tohis mother obviously, and was having an
affair while he was married, andthen Diana comes out and says, hey,
everybody guess what. He's having anaffair and it's publicly acknowledged. I
mean, no one's going to disputeit now right at this point in time.
Did that do any damage whatsoever tothe monarchy in any way? Did
(12:54):
I miss something here? No,it didn't, and I'll tell you why,
because the queen was above it,all right, Okay. On the
top of it was the Queen,in her regal silence, trying to like
reign in the family people who againcould see her as being most the leader
of the royal family and also theleader of her own family. Right,
so they gave her, they cuther a break. The issue now is
(13:15):
that the king, yes, thehead, is a player in this story.
The queen was never a player inthat story. Okay, good point.
She was at a regal remove.Right. You don't have that with
Charles now, because you have preciselyall the things that happened during that marriage
and the affair and the revelations abouttelephone calls and whatnot. You know about
(13:35):
his petulance and about his jealousy overthe attention that Diana got, and what
it sounds like the attention that Meganand Harry get, right. I mean,
these people have very very thin skins. I will say this. You
raised Diana. There was an essayby Patti Davis in The Times over the
weekend, Patty Davis being the daughterof Ronald Reagan, of course, and
she wrote a very famous Tellall bookduring the Reagan administration, trashing her father
(13:58):
and Nancy Reagan, who I believewas her stepmother. In this essay that
she wrote, she said she regretteddoing that, and if she could have
given any advice to Harry, itwould have been, don't do this.
Don't do it in her in heradulthood and her maturity. Thing not a
good idea. I wonder whether ornot Diana would have had the same feeling.
I think obviously Diana's no way Dianawould accountenanced Harry treshing his brother,
(14:22):
her other son, right, Butshe may have also said, you know
that interview I gave to Martin Bisher, putting aside the fact that Bisher lied
to her and kind of like,you know, coaxed her into doing it
under false pretense. The things thatI said I shouldn't have done in public.
But yeah, we'll never know becauseshe's not with us. But it's
an interesting, again, notion abouthow she might have felt about what's going
on. Now. I agree.I agree. I think I've said before
(14:45):
that I think if she were talkingto Harry, she would say not to
go so far right where you've goneright? Okay, she had to do
what she had to do. Ibelieve for different reasons. Okay, at
the time, I don't think heneeded to go as far as he's going.
And guess what, let's go backto this idea of damage and everything
(15:07):
else, and you know what's knowndamage? Yeah, or emotional damage or
damage to your image and reputation?Right? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Isn't the king about to be coronatedsoon? Yeah? Okay, So there's
gonna be this majestic display and theking is gonna be coronated, And is
(15:31):
some of what he's done in thepast going to get swept under the rug
because of the magnificence of the factthat he's now the king. And then
there's little Harry in the corner withhis book, waving his book. I
think people are going to say,you know what, Harry, we don't
care. I think they view himas a spoiled bratt. And certainly,
(15:54):
if you go on Twitter, that'swhat the commentary is. Fine, But
so let me take the opposite tackof But I was just saying, go
for it. Okay, let's rememberso whenever Harry or Megan talk, at
least in the past before this book, and before the real change, it
would be Harry and Megan are goingto Africa to do their you know,
Invictus games, or they're going tothere are William and cad are going to
Africa to talk about rhinos, right, and then the deal that's made is
(16:18):
that they talk to the reporter aboutrhinos and about their efforts to save African
wildlife. And then they finally geta couple of questions in about the royal
family about this, and that's whatthe press care about. What you're saying
is partially correct, which is that, yes, the pomp and circumstance,
whether it's going to be at thecoronation or clearly about the queen's funeral,
is one thing. It's very hardto separate that from the soap opera.
(16:41):
The fact of the matter is there'sgoing to be more attention to the Caro
nation now, precisely because of whatHarry has done. Is he going to
go, is he not going togo? If he does go, what's
it going to be like if hedoesn't go, what's Charl's going to think?
You can't separate the two, right, We don't really care about the
fact that the queen or the kingnow goes and opens some factory in Leeds.
(17:03):
Nobody cares. Okay, they careabout the soap opera, right,
so you can't separate that. Peopleget the excuse is that we have the
royal family to go open airports andfactories and children's hospitals, but who cares.
Nobody. It's the soap opera thatwe care about. But it is
the soap opera that feeds the attentionon they're saving the wildlife or they're saving
(17:25):
on the things. So they're kindof in this terrible bind. They may
hate the British press, and Harrymay rail about the way he's been treated,
but the worst thing that could happento them is that no one pays
attention and then they're just people whodon't do anything and nobody cares. And
I agree what happens. The Britishpublic may say, why do we have
these folks? Now? They're goingto do that now because they're gonna go
(17:47):
this is embarrassing and the fact thatwe pay money to watch this soap opera
is awful. But I think alot of people are going to say,
we've been doing that for a longtime, and whether it was the Duke
of Windsor's abdication in the nineteen thirties, or Queen Victoria and or Children and
Whip. It's also pop, right, Shakespeare is so popera? Yes,
yes, So what's Hamlet? TheHamlet's a gay Hamlet's a guy whose father
(18:11):
dies and he and his mother remarriedsomebody. I mean, come on,
there's no there's no. They didnot leave room for a second and third
act. There's no place to gohere. So we've already seen the first
episode. The only thing we cando is watch it again and again and
again, the way I watched Godfatherand Soprano. Okay, I will admit
(18:32):
that I don't have the imagination toimagine these next acts, but there may
be one, and that's why peoplekeep paying attention. Okay, okay,
this is an abbreviated version as westart to new it is, but you
know what, it's still a goodone. We took a topic that's that's
in center in the news, correct, and that's what we do. It's
good to be back, yes,it is. Where the entertainment brothers follow
(18:53):
us, like us, Tell yourfriends about us. We will be back
soon. That's to everyone. Intwenty three for a happy, healthy,
and blessed New Year. Cheerio,
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.