[laughs]

But I think that's, that's part of it.

And I think, I think...

And I think the palace was struggling a bit.

They were on the back foot.

They'd been slightly done over by this massive story until perhaps from the most unexpected of sources, a torpedo r- was fired right through the bows of this, of this book by, uh, Piers Morgan.

And suddenly it's gone from them being, you know, knocked around the park.

But before that, who did you think was winning the battle of the narratives between the two Charleses?

Why do you think it was chosen as the launch platform for Earl Spencer's book? D- was that a surprise at all?

Well, I suppose it might be seen as being a bit of a surprise because they've been traditionally a very pro-royal newspaper.

They recently had a big spat with Prince Harry, um, and so they might not be obvious, but I think in a way, I think any news organization is fairly morally flexible in the face of a, of a big story.

And if it's a, a really, really good story like this, they will be moral acrobats, really, and they'll find themselves landing in a position where it seems sensible and good to do this and to hear from Earl Spencer.

And I think that is the way it is.

Who wouldn't snap up that opportunity if it was, if it was offered to you and you had enough cash in your pocket to do it? So I think it's, it's inevitable that, you know, maybe they have the biggest, biggest wallet.

They're also in a bit-- funny position now because they are a newspaper with-- still with plenty of heft, but also they're trying to transition, like all newspapers, to a digital platform.

And how about the acrobatics of the other newspaper titles? Faced with the Mail and their great exclusive, their serialization, how did the others respond? [chuckles]

Remind us who the Lord Chamberlain is.

Well, he is a top Buckingham Palace official, but I think the interesting bit of it was it was written on behalf of the King.

This wasn't an anonymous royal source.

It wasn't a thing which just could be brushed away as being a bit of gossip.

Directly from the King's right-hand man, very much with the signature of the King hovering over it.

Um, and it's a fascinating letter because I think the question everyone will say is, why was it written? To whom was it really sent? Was it-- How was it aimed? And, uh, I think probably the answer is it was aimed at making sure that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Harry and Meghan, are told pretty clearly they might be back in the UK, but they're not back in the firm.

They're not royals.

[laughs]

... before we get into that, can I just ask you, in terms of y- you standing there, how long have you gotta wait? Are you surrounded by other journalists? What's the situation where you are in New York? What time's the event?

Well, the event will be at 6:00 in the UK, uh, which is 1:00 in New York.

Um, we've been here for, uh, already for, uh, an hour or so waiting, and we'll be a while longer.

And the policing is extremely strict.

Everything has been scanned and checked, and passports checked, and every, every document we've ever had checked over.

There's a sort of ring of steel around all these events.

I think because of the sensitivities around the gun attack in Washington at the weekend at the event attended by President Trump, the police are hyper alert.

But are there moments, I don't know whether it might be around body language or some kind of imagery, that give you a more truthful read of what's actually going on?

How much does that align, do you think, with, with people across the UK?

I think there has been quite a lot of skepticism about this trip, and there have been two opinion polls recently, uh, which both showed that more people in Britain were against this trip going ahead than were in favor of it happening.

And there were also people who were rather doubtful, it seemed, about whether it could bring benefits to the UK.

But at the same time, I suppose if you were coming at it from a British political position, you'd say, or diplomatic position, that, that you'd think, "Well, m- th-this conversation has to be had.

There has to be an attempt." Um, people are very keenly aware of America's importance in supporting NATO and in supporting Ukraine, uh, against Russian aggression.

But there's that extraordinary balance, which you sort of hinted at in your question, really, that, that at the same time, people are very, uh, suspicious and unsure about which direction President Trump will head in next.

What will you be listening for from the King, um, in those moments?

Well, I think, I think you're right.

And Sean, just a little while after that post from Donald Trump on Truth Social, we, well, we didn't get a post from Buckingham Palace, but we got a statement from Buckingham Palace about the state visit, confirming finally that it's going ahead.

And that's been a, a long time coming.

We finally had, uh, confirmation that it will go ahead, and we heard today that, um, that it'll be a trip to, at least to Washington in the, in the, in the words of, uh, the Buckingham Palace statement.

They didn't give us a date.

They said late April.

Um, and also there'll be a trip to Bermuda afterwards.

It was a fairly, fairly sort of frugal, um, statement in terms of the number of words, just set out that it would go on.

On the Buckingham Palace statement, it opens with a phrase like, "Oh, on the advice of His Majesty's government, this state visit is gonna happen." Is that how those statements are always phrased, or is this particular one like, "Oh, it wasn't our deci-- It wasn't our choice"? [chuckles]