[0:00]This is a story that has totally run ahead of the palace. [music] They've lost control of the narrative. The disparity between the way in which the Labour party is self flagagillating and
[0:11]apologizing and decapitating themselves [music] and in comparison with the royal family who finally had managed to admit to concern but no apology is >> a gulf of accountability.
[0:22]>> It's extraordinary >> and shame as well. >> Andrew does not have any kind of crown immunity that applies only to the sovereign. so he can be summoned in a criminal court in this country.
[0:32]>> Is the monarchy finished? >> Hello and welcome to the forecast. Andrew Mountbatton Windsor is once again
[0:42]at the center of serious allegations connected to the late pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein with police now assessing whether a criminal case will follow and his brother the king not
[0:52]apparently standing in their way. So, could the former prince really face a trial and even jail time? But beyond the legal questions lies a deeper one about power, privilege, and of course,
[1:03]accountability. Will this just be another royal scandal that fades with the news cycle, or a real moment of reckoning for the crown itself? Joining me today to discuss this is Dr. Tessa
[1:14]Dunlop, royal historian and host of the podcast Where Politics Meets History, and Professor Jeremy Hoarder, professor of criminal law at the LSE. Welcome to you both. Tessa, let me start with you. Um,
[1:26]things have changed quite dramatically, haven't they, in the last week. Tell us how. >> Well, to give you some idea of just how much things have changed, you will recall Kier Starmer returning from his
[1:36]Asia tour and he shot from the hip in an unprecedented way. So much so that it made the front pages of some of the Sunday papers when he said that in order
[1:45]to be victim centered, Andrew should testify. He didn't you that that's to paraphrase him. This was before the whole Mandal thing. Sure. Oh, >> and that's the first time he'd said that about Andrew. >> The first time previously he said it was
[1:57]a matter for Andrew. This is him coming front and center and placing Andrew in the narrative. I happen to have um from a good a reliable source within the palace to know that they were very
[2:07]displeased with this because not only had Kis Damon consulted the palace, but also he had trotten on their terrain. You know, he was musling in with his big political nose in what they considered
[2:19]to be their family matter. Now, scroll forward a week and a half and how things have changed. This is a story that has
[2:29]totally run ahead of the palace. They hate that. They like to be able to curate everything. They've lost control of the narrative. And the only thing that's >> arguably in some ways playing in their
[2:40]favor is the story has been somewhat capped by Mandlesson. However, the disparity between the way in which the Labour Party is self flagagillating and
[2:49]apologizing and decapitating themselves and in comparison with the royal family who finally had managed to admit to concern but no apology is >> a gulf of accountability.
[3:01]>> It's extraordinary and shame as well. >> Yeah, it's appalling. And I think the general public, most of whom sort of sit in the middle and go, "Yeah, all right, they're monarchy." you know a bit apathetic but they'll go with it are feeling I think deeply perturbed
[3:13]>> but the so the other thing is that the king has come up with a statement hasn't he and what is that statement exactly say and how significant is that >> I think it's very important for what it
[3:23]doesn't say doesn't apologize so we have K Dharma saying I apologize for appointing Madison >> but what we have from the king is um a
[3:34]sentiment an idea really that he's already almost done enough because it says the king has made clear in words and through unprecedented actions his profound concern at allegations. And you think, okay, what words? What
[3:45]unprecedented actions? I'll just leave that hanging and perhaps you can come up with the answers there. >> But he doesn't say, "Sorry, sorry, we stood by our man, the prince from 2011 when that photograph was put out in the
[3:56]public." And we now know because there's been this corroborative email sent in 2015 by Jul that that that the photograph was real. In other words, they protected Prince Andrew. And when
[4:08]you have the ultimate institution of state, the royal family basically trolling you, effectively saying to the late Virginia Duay, you're a liar.
[4:19]>> That has profound consequences. And by the way, she's no longer a liar. >> But the significance of the king's statement in terms of what he did say is that if there were a criminal investigation, the second part, he would not stand in their way.
[4:30]>> And this is also key. the king's a constitutional monarch really he shouldn't be prejuditial either side of a of a legal yeah um case whether it's um in America or Britain and he made
[4:41]that quite clear he actually said in his statement you know that's a matter for Andrew Mcbatton you know his his case with the police his but you know but we
[4:51]are open we are open to be cooperative in other words drawing a line between him and his brother but can the can the royal family do that is there a clear line between this >> because there's the law and we'll talk
[5:02]about that in a second. And then there's politics. Politics around the monarchy, around the crown, the firm. >> Indeed. >> And I know it's only one or two hecklers that have, you know, shouted out at the king and of and they were shouted down
[5:12]by the crowd around him, but this has happened twice now. It has. >> I don't think the queen ever got heckled. >> No. Well, I think heckling's long existed. I think that the mass media, which is generally on side for the
[5:23]monarchy, tries to curate around hecklers and um seen as rather sort of distasteful and inappropriate. But uh it the problem is it's speaking to the majority in some ways those questions.
[5:34]How long have you known? And it wasn't even a rude heckle. It wasn't an egg or something. But it was a question that I think's forefront. And when Prince Edward, who was the first person to speak to this problem because he was
[5:44]bounced into it on stage, I think representing the British embassy over in Dubai. And he said, "Well, I don't think anyone who is interested actually no, Edward, that's what everyone's thinking about at the moment." And it was
[5:56]extraordinary that they thought they could do that. And that again speaks to the level of sort of entitlement and almost a detachment from reality.
[6:07]>> Yeah. Jeremy, the when it comes to the law. >> Yes. >> What can they do now? What do you think they will do now regarding Andrew? And in what particular case, I mean because there are two areas. There's there's uh
[6:18]you know abuse of public office, you know, was he selling or showing secrets, trade secrets to Epstein? uh or indeed the other case you know the victims the girls Virginia the late Virginia Giuffre
[6:30]and so on. Yes indeed. Um the short answer to the question of what can they do is that um uh Andrew does not have any kind of crown immunity. That applies
[6:40]only to the sovereign >> only to the king. >> Yeah. Query his wife as well don't know but we don't need to worry about that because the key thing is does uh Andrew and he doesn't he doesn't have immunity.
[6:52]So he can be summoned uh uh to in a criminal court in this country. Um now the position may very well be different in terms of uh whether he should be giving giving evidence in the United
[7:02]States. Um we'll see what comes of that. Um but I think that what's happened of course as we all know is that the king has created distance between himself and Andrew by stripping of his titles. So
[7:14]that means they're not bound together in quite the same way. He's not part of the firm if you like in quite the same way that he was before. Secondly, there's been this from the point of Andrew's uh from from uh Andrew Mbaton Windsor's
[7:25]point of view, this very ominous statement from the king that he won't stand in the way of any criminal investigation. And of course, it's absolutely right that the king has said that. But what I think that means
[7:36]>> said it quite late in the day. >> He has absolutely. But I think uh that the timing is significant. I think because uh it must be remembered that from the king's point of view um
[7:47]whatever you might think about this Andrew continues consistently to deny any criminal wrongdoing. Um so unless and until we have uh uh substantive
[7:57]proof of that then uh the king would not be expected I think to make an adverse statement about his brother. >> And just just to clarify one point there was no immunity for him whatsoever even
[8:09]when he was still a prince. >> Absolutely not. >> Okay. So his legal status, >> you know, having been stripped of the title has not changed. >> No. >> Okay. Um, so there are three potential
[8:20]cases here, aren't there? There's just testifying before Congress over Virginia Duprey and the women. >> There is the criminal case against him
[8:30]on um business interests here in the UK, what he was doing as being a business envoy. And then also the question of of women and underage sex here. >> Yes.
[8:40]>> Right. three cases. How likely is it do you think that he'll end up in the dock for one of those three or perhaps all of them? >> It's extremely difficult to say. I mean, I know that's frustrating when people
[8:50]say that, but uh I would have thought that the most likely investigation would be the one where you have uh victims of
[9:00]alleged um sexual abuse. I think that's the most likely investigation. >> Yes, I think so because even in the UK Yeah. Well, I think that's right because uh I would say those are the ones that have the highest degree of public
[9:11]interest that would command the most resources and the most police time, it seems to me. Um there may be more evidence in relation immediately uh on in relation to the misconduct case. Um
[9:23]but um whilst uh there maybe will be a strong case of misconduct in public office and some of us have been arguing that about his activities for years, it's only now that we're being um paid that attention is being paid to those
[9:35]allegations. Um but uh in the end a breach of public trust in relation to the disclosure of information is not of the same order as sexual offending, which is obviously extremely serious.
[9:47]Tessa, >> but I I'm fascinated to hear you say that because I was informed this morning that Temps Valley Police, which I believe is overseeing both the criminal investigations here in the UK, has
[9:58]paused the inquiry with regards to abuse of women and at the moment is pursuing the one regarding possible abuse um of uh public office when he was a trade
[10:09]envoy. And we know historically it's incredibly hard for women to bring sexual predators to justice because the two chief witnesses are the accused and the accuser. The case of Virginia Duy,
[10:20]she's no longer even alive. And so while it might be the juicier bone, the bigger, deeper, darker story actually in terms of hard proof, something that you
[10:32]can rely on, it's all there in the email cache when it comes to him spilling over about Helman Province and investment in Singapore [clears throat] and Vietnam. whereas actually how do you prove a non-consensial
[10:43]sex that took place 20 years ago? >> I agree that it's difficult. Uh it's a question of where the public interest lies and it seems to me that there is a case for saying that pursuing the
[10:55]misconduct case although the evidence might be clear would uh be in itself very damaging to the king for example it it it casts a shadow on his reputation as much as it does on Andrew. Whereas in
[11:07]relation to the sexual offending, you're not you're not going to worry about that because it's much more important to get justice for victims of sexual offending than it is to worry about the reputation. >> In other words, you're saying while he
[11:17]has no immunity being an ex- prince and didn't even when he was a prince, you're saying he does actually have immunity because of the family he belongs to. >> Well, he doesn't have immunity. No, it's a question. >> Always protected to an extent. to an
[11:29]extent >> which is the bigger shadow is the biggest shadow he gets you know he ends up in you know in his day in court >> and is convicted that's a shadow or nothing is done that's also a shadow
[11:40]>> possibly a bigger shadow >> absolutely it is um but it's a question of uh I think where the public interest really lies and what the and where the public feeling really lies and I think
[11:50]that most people are it seems to me rightly concerned about the element of uh of possible sexual abuse that even though the evidence may be clearer on misconduct, which I think it probably is. >> But to what extent does public interest
[12:02]dictate what actually gets investigated and finally ends up with an indictment? >> It's crucial >> or is it just the evidence that's available? >> Well, the prosecutors have to take into account two things. First of all, whether the evidence provides a
[12:13]reasonable prospect of conviction. So, that's the evidence point. Um, but secondly, they have to decide whether there's a public interest in prosecution essentially. Um, and on that cases, and that's a very wide set of
[12:25]considerations. There are a lot of issues there. uh in relation to the public interest and all I'm suggesting it's not I mean I personally um feel that it's right to pursue this case that is my personal view it should be
[12:37]>> which case both cases >> uh both cases yes they should be including the most case I'm merely predicting that uh there will in the end be a feeling that it wouldn't be right to pursue it >> how difficult is it to prove misconduct
[12:48]and public office >> it's a high bar because um you have to approve not merely that something was done that was wrong that shouldn't have been done, but there was an abuse of the
[12:58]public's trust. Now, there there are two factors that might lead you to think that in this case. One is that he allegedly disclosed information for the private financial gain of another
[13:09]person. That's seriousness element number one. >> Yeah. >> The second is that he may have done so as part of an exchange of favors. In other words, there's a corruption element to it. So, that's that's um
[13:19]seriousness element number two. And if you put those together and it's the same two issues in the Mandlesson case at stake there, then you've got uh a case where you might say there was an abuse
[13:30]of the public trust. Yes. >> Fessa. >> Yeah. It's it's so complex on a number of levels. At the moment, if you go to the National Archives, the public records
[13:40]office, you um will not be able to access Prince Andrews >> um papers as a trade envoy until 2065. Now that
[13:51]>> 2016 year >> Yeah. to guarantee that basically that he's dead by the time you have access to his papers. So in terms >> That's not normal though, is it? >> No, of course it's not normal. >> So what is normal? It's 20 years.
[14:02]>> It's 20 years. 100%. It's 20 years. >> He's now Andrew Mountbatton Windsor. He's no longer >> But at the moment, you still can't, from what I gather, you still cannot access those files. So, if we're talking about
[14:12]full transparency and the king saying we're leaning into this, what does it actually mean? Does that exemption get lifted? Because in order to really dig down into Andrew as a trade envoy, we
[14:23]need to get into those files. >> Well, that may I mean, I can't answer the question about whether it could be lifted in certain circumstances. I mean that might very well be but the trouble for Andrew Mattbatton Windsor is that
[14:34]other evidence is coming up that is not covered by that. >> What's really interesting is Andrew Mattbaton Windsor often pops up in other people's court cases. There was the case of the Chinese spy and again that's how we suddenly rumbled to what Andrew may
[14:46]have been doing his sort of nefarious parties and connections but it's very hard to actually catch him on his own terms because of so much documentation not being available to the public
[14:57]because of this royal prerogative. >> Right. But if it is 20 years then we should be looking at the stuff now because he was active as a trade on war in in 2001 to 2011 I believe so arguably yeah some
[15:08]of his papers we should have access should be available. >> Yeah but as we've established he may no longer be a prince but he's still not one of us >> but so imagine if that issue that you've just raised you know becomes part of the
[15:20]public conversation. Yeah, >> I mean this is really toxic stuff for the royal family and you are protecting this exclusion which by the way we don't understand why it should exist in the first place for the sake of someone we all think should be investigated and on trial
[15:31]>> and by the way at some point here I think almost the subjects need to lead their sovereign I think it's very very hard to reform yourself and the royal family have been led by this kind of
[15:43]bible it was bad I think it was 1867 his English constitution book where he said you must not Let the daylight in upon the magic. Well, okay, we need to
[15:54]flip that right over and let the daylight in >> as key lights more than daylight. >> But the sovereign isn't the king's not going to go, "Come on, bring it on." You know, here are all my here's all my lobbying with politicians, etc. We need
[16:04]to push this. But at the same time, you know, if this is one of those existential issues for the future of the crown >> and it is >> and it is, then surely it's better, it's more in their interest to kind of cut
[16:16]off the cancerous limb as it were that is Andrew and say you're on your own mate. You know, this is what you did and we had nothing to do with it. Even if people start saying, well, we should look at their tax affairs and what about
[16:27]this and what about exemptions there. What do you think, Charlie? >> Well, I think that's the process we're seeing now, which I referred to as earlier on. It's the question the king is distancing himself from Mount Baton
[16:37]Windsor in order to make it possible and you see this in relation to corporate crime as well that there's an effort to try and focus in on one individual who the company claims was to blame. And so they're going to make it possible to
[16:49]isolate Andrew. >> Does that work? >> Um well that that is the that is what you're betting the house on it seems to me. And uh I personally think that the
[16:59]if whatever happens to Mount Baton Windsor that uh the king will feel that he's he's doing enough at the moment to preserve the reput his reputation and that of the monarchy even though it's
[17:09]been damaged. I think that that enough is being done at the moment but we don't know what more may come out about what interactions have been between the two of them. We don't know >> is the danger. Sorry. Go No, it's just
[17:20]so you have on the one hand access to Andrew's files which you've established as a is an a sort of separate or an anomalous case, but you also have the question for all finances. And if we take, for example, some of these
[17:30]mainstream television shows as as a barometer for public opinion. One of the other debates I was asked to contribute to was, you know, should Charles be paying for Andrew's house, Marsh Farm in
[17:41]Sandringham. Now that then means Andrew's story is bleeding into royal finances which is another massive no-go area for the royal family. I mean Williamsworth and his father as the
[17:52]duche of Cornwall he he doesn't publish his tax returns. He's the now the new uh head of the duchy of Cornwall the Duke of he we don't see them. Charles actually used to at least publish his tax returns from the duche of Cornwall
[18:03]and and there is there really is no transparency and they operate under entirely separate rules. No inheritance tax for the sovereign to the heir apparent. um they don't pay capital or or corporation tax on their duche
[18:15]profits which means that probably the late queen's payoff to Andrew was tax exempt which means probably we did tax pay for it. >> So at some stage we can expect maybe even someone in the royal household i
[18:26]the brother the king to say we we are going to tell the public where this money is from and and when it was paid and to whom it was paid. I mean I think without that the question marks will always be there. They'll linger. The
[18:38]problem is the great winsome story for the royal family over the last 50 years and they've had their problems has been the majestic popularity of the late
[18:49]queen and you go to that >> fades into the rear view mirror doesn't it >> eventually >> I don't know I think I think we need to be able to hold up certain personalities
[18:59]from our recent past and believe in them and if you overturn that sum of money and find out who was behind it and why it was paid and when it was paid Do you remember this was paid in her final
[19:08]year? It was her platinum jubilee year. They needed the Andrew problem to go away. Another reason we know it was a lot of money. Just make the problem go away because we've got a big platinum jubilee to celebrate and then we didn't
[19:20]know. But >> pay 10 to 12 million quid to someone if you haven't done something with them. That's what the public will ask >> or or argue. >> It's a lot of money to pay for nothing >> except what they could argue the royal
[19:32]family. And it's one of the reasons and the other thing that I was told off record was then when Kier Stmer had said he should testify was that well they really don't want him to testify because we know he's loose from the truth with the truth and he's all over the shop and
[19:43]goodness knows what he'd say in front of a congressional committee. The same could be said for not wanting him to go and give evidence in this civil case that was brought against him in 2022. Andrew is a liability. We didn't need
[19:55]the 29 interview to prove that. But it sure did prove it. >> Yeah. Okay. This is still a lot of money. Jeremy, if he So, if he were to testify before Congress, which is what, you know, the Democrats certainly are
[20:05]calling for even a few Republicans. I'm not sure exactly where the king stands on this, but I think he'd find it difficult to oppose that as well. How would that work? And what does it actually mean legally for him?
[20:16]>> Well, I think um legally it means that uh he's in broadly the same position he was when he was being interviewed by Emily Maiters. That is to say, he he he
[20:26]he he will be asked questions about what he knew, what his oath was. Uh yes, absolutely. >> He wasn't under oath with Emily Mley. >> Uh no, no, no, no. But it's going to be
[20:35]the similar situation. Uh and um so he is going to be asking what he knew, what his involvement was very clearly. And uh those questions um may incriminate him
[20:47]or >> so that testimony before Congress, whether it's in person or on a video link, could lead to an actual indictment. Yeah, it could. Which which is why I think he that for me personally
[20:57]I don't think that's going to happen because >> well I just don't think there is anything for him to be gained in cooperating with it essentially and not cooperating is not going to make any
[21:08]difference to his current level of reputation >> because because if he's because if he does cooperate there's the risk him being a loose cannon that you know he might incriminate himself and end up in a in a court of law in the United States.
[21:19]>> If you lie under oath in the United States you can end up where Jane Maxwell lives. >> Of course. Yeah. Yes, >> exactly. So you But I mean his So you're saying his reputation is already so rock bottom, he might as well just, you know, soldier this one through and and not
[21:30]bother turning up. Although the pressure from the king might become bigger and bigger. >> If you believe the king is placing pressure on Andrew to give evidence at a congressional committee if you because you've assumed that.
[21:41]>> I don't No, I don't assume anything. I'm just It's possible. It's You don't think he is president? >> Let's just know. I'm absolutely sure he isn't because you know it's too dangerous. >> Way too dangerous. Absolutely.
[21:52]So what are they doing? They're cutting them loose, but they're putting a wall around them at the same time. >> Several things. This is the wonderful thing about the royal family, which are, and I quote David Dimbley from his documentary the end of last year. They're as rich as bureaucrats.
[22:04]Actually, if your duchy of Lancaster is making profits untaxed really of over20 million pounds a year, >> are they untaxed? >> Yeah, they're effectively they don't pay capital gains or corporation tax duties.
[22:15]So and and inheritance all the stuff he got from the queen was funneled through Charles because from sovereign to heir does you don't you don't pay tax. >> So actually therefore is 10 million win
[22:25]one year you can probably shoulder that. Um the the other thing is the fascinating thing here is he's the defender of the faith. He wants to be the defender of more than one faith actually Charles and I believe on on
[22:36]some level he is a compassionate man. Um, and I think this is so egregious for them as a private family because actually, and here I got really trolled actually because I came out saying on a on a Sunday morning program where I felt
[22:48]it was fit to talk about the idea of mercy and redemption that actually if I'm a private family member, let's hypothesize you're my brother and you've been [clears throat] accused of equivalent things. Um, I would hope Matt
[22:59]that I wouldn't cut you off. I might be furious with you. I might be pushing you towards a congressional cause and berate you every time I see you, but I would hope that I wouldn't cut you off, never
[23:10]to be seen again standing next to you, not allowing you at a public funeral or at a Christmas lunch. But that's really what we're asking of the private family, the Windsor, to do with Andrew. And one
[23:21]of the reasons we're asking them to do that, I think, is because he hasn't been convicted in a public court. And so, because he's got a social conviction. >> Yes. Which is almost more dangerous, >> which is also kind of weird, right? So
[23:32]he's not going to be convicted in court. We don't want any of that to come, you know, out or to be too scary for the institution. But we're going to never ever see him again at a Christmas lunch, >> which is morally repugnant because it
[23:44]was Winston Churchill, you know, said the way in which you you treat your criminals is a is a barometer for for judging civilization. You know, are we going to effectively if you extrapolate the narrative and say, well, Andrew really should be in prison. Okay, we've
[23:56]got no proof of that at the moment. But what you're suggesting is then somebody who's convicted of an equivalent crime, you know, isn't worth a prison visit. Well, then you're in the sort of terrain of wanting to reintroduce the death penalty. It's properly dark actually
[24:08]where this narrative is going because of the braing mob, >> right? >> Because that's where we're at at the moment. public's deciding >> and we'll we'll ask the um the story about Monarchy right at the end of the podcast. But the med the role of the Met
[24:18]Police and Andrew's protection officers who would have been, you know, around him while some of the stuff allegedly supposedly possibly took place, what did they have to answer for? What should
[24:29]what should they do now? I'm not sure that uh I mean the risk of being proved dramatically wrong. I I'm not sure that's a huge problem because I I very much doubt that they would have been
[24:40]privy to or would have known about any significant systematic or or serious offending. I mean I just don't see that as very likely worth asking the question isn't it?
[24:51]>> Oh of course. Yeah. Uh uh but I I think it it it raises some difficult questions because all protection officers acting for everyone under their protection will see things that they would rather not
[25:00]have seen that will see things that they uh in some circumstances might >> allowed to testify about them or do do they sign an an NDA with the royal family that says they never care? >> Well, they obviously they're going to be
[25:11]under confidentiality agreements, but confidentiality agreements shouldn't mean that you um are under obligation not to report a serious crime. I mean clearly that trumps any confident confidentiality but I just don't think
[25:22]that whatever their suspicions might have been there would have been enough for them to say um we should have gone to the police about X or Y. I just don't see that as >> which takes us back to the question at the beginning where you said what's he
[25:33]most like to be convicted for and you said you thought it was sexual misconduct and I would go back and say no I think every time it's about abuse of a public office because it's so difficult to prove which is why the case
[25:43]of abuse against women but remains this elephant in the room that's never properly dealt with because how do you prove something's happened between two individuals? Well, if I if I may, you've
[25:54]got to be careful here because testimonial evidence is evidence. And so if a woman says, uh, I was raped or I was abused by someone, that is evidence that it happened. And the mere fact that
[26:05]the other person denies it doesn't undermine that as evidence. >> Okay. So, can you then explain how Virginia Duprey today is dead and and apparently no justice was done and instead a load of money across the
[26:16]Atlantic? That doesn't feel like her testimony stood for anything. And no wonder she felt crazy. Well, absolutely correct. I mean, and it's in a tragic and appalling situation, but there are
[26:26]other women who uh may well be willing to stand up and give testimony, and they need to be given support and to uh to find their feet and to do that. And if they do, then I think what we need to do
[26:38]is give credibility to their evidence. And um how much credibility are you going to give to Andrew's evidence compared to one of those women? And to bring us this background to a broader question for monarchy that is one of the
[26:48]I think the the deepest problems we had a photograph you know we he platform >> I mean I didn't deny any wrongdoing you know >> so [laughter] there's a photograph with
[26:59]his arm around this girl you know there's and and he said that doesn't exist that's you're imagining that it's not a real photograph and we platformed him we allowed him to do that and because he had the heft of the establishment and his family behind him
[27:10]at that time until 2019 fully behind Andrew You know, he got away with basically denying what you said, which is a woman's testimony is evidence as well as a photograph. And that's why the
[27:22]royal family is so implicated, which takes me back to the original statement of profound concern. We need an apology. >> Is he getting legal advice at the moment, Andrew? [laughter] Who's giving him legal advice? We know he must be
[27:34]getting I was going to say [laughter] he's paying for legal advice. >> Uh well, he I would imagine Yeah, I would imagine he must be getting legal advice. I don't know who it's from, but uh it would be extraordinary if he
[27:44]wasn't. So, yes, I would think that that must be the case. Yes. >> Okay. So, let's end on the broad question then. Uh you know, and we've said this so many times before when there have been moments of, you know,
[27:53]crisis for the royal family. But is this the biggest one compared to all the other ones we've had in the last 40 years or so? >> I think why this is enormous is because the sword of Damicles has hung over
[28:05]Andrew's head and therefore implicating his whole family for so long now. It's like this seeping saw. It's like the dripping roast. And actually, it's
[28:15]hugely generational. And that's where the royal family have a real problem. We see with the whole Harry and Megan Ferrari, there was about 25%
[28:26]of young people not just being ambivalent, but actively being anti- monarchy. They lent in briefly thinking it was going to change and then they got burned and now they're actively anti.
[28:36]And we've never had that before. a hard kernel of anti-monarchy sentiment that's growing. And the problem is you can have apathy when you're young because young people don't really go in for big
[28:47]traditional symbols that the state makes you celebrate. >> But if that anti-iment is then carried forward, where does the support come from when they grow up?
[28:58]>> And today I heard I mean obviously it came from the Republic campaign who are heavily agendered saying that today for the first time support for monarchies below 50%. it is around about 50% at the
[29:09]moment. This has been a unprecedented drop. The first polling um was around 86% in the 1980s and it's now down to 50. They're skating on increasingly thin ice. The
[29:20]>> but institutions, you know, even ancient ones like the monarchy have the ability to reform themselves, to reinvent themselves. >> They're hugely they're tied into. >> Do you think that would work, Jeremy, if they if [laughter] they use this
[29:31]opportunity of crisis to say, "Let's open up the tax books, you know, let's let's do this." I mean, whatever the the 50 things that McKenzie would advise them to do to stay alive, >> let the daylight in. >> Yeah, I don't see that happening. I I
[29:42]think the strategy of isolating Andrew and um treating him as persona nong grata as we say uh is the royal family's hope to survive uh damaged yes for a
[29:54]period of time but uh to survive this particular controversy I I think and uh they and that enables them also to resist these other demands on the grounds that those are quite separate
[30:04]and um uh you I mean they can look at them on their merits but essentially they're a different thing. So wouldn't it be ironic if K star was felled by this
[30:14]>> and and the monarchy just kind of sailed off? I I wish I could be in on their weekly audiences at the moment actually because there is such a clear disparity uh the way in which Kier stars if you
[30:26]like become the whipping boy for the Epstein scandal when it's been I think a far longer deeper problem for the royal family and I also think the idea of just singling out Andrew and the royal family
[30:37]taking no responsibility for him is a particularly cruel one and one that means they are not taking any accountability. So the Labour party, the prime minister takes accountability, but somehow the royal family now is just one
[30:49]rotten apple. It doesn't work like that. The level of privilege Andrew's exhibited is something that that's institutionalized that level of privilege. >> Jeremy, you seem to be saying it's it's
[30:59]cruel but necessary. >> That would basically be in my judgment. Yes. >> Okay. Final question then. Short answer. Is the monarchy finished? >> The monarchy is not finished because we are a constitutional monarchy. They are
[31:11]baked into all areas of our state and they have huge support not only but particularly from the fourth estate the press hand in glove one needs the other.
[31:22]So in the end they'll keep moving forward. >> Yeah. Charles and Camila and William collectively will save the monarchy. Yes. >> For the time being but but the the bigger problem is will the mon I think
[31:33]the bigger question here is the existential one. The monarchy will survive, but will it keep working for us as a nation? Will it be the glue, the social and national glue that it once
[31:44]was, for example, in the 1980s when a very different question. But when an institution that's based on popularity is no longer working for the nation, what then?
[31:55]>> Well, then it might be finished. >> But then rooting it out, >> what you want to say, God save the king at the end of this podcast. >> I'm a monarchist. I'm just very disappointed. I'm one of those floating voters. appointed Monica,
[32:05]>> but I don't get a vote. [laughter] >> Jeremy Hoarder, Tessa D, thank you very much indeed. That's it from the forecast. Hope you enjoyed it. See you soon.