This is a story that has totally run ahead of the palace. They've lost control of the narrative. The disparity between the way in which the Labour Party is self flagellating and apologizing and decapitating themselves, and in comparison with the royal family who finally had managed to admit to concern but no apology, is. It's a gulf of accountability.
It's extraordinary. 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. Is the monarchy finished? Hello and welcome to the forecast. Andrew Mountbatten. Windsor is once again at the centre of serious allegations connected to the late paedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, with police now assessing whether a criminal case will follow and his brother the King not 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, 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 Doctor Tessa Dunlop, royal historian and host of the podcast where politics Meeks History and Professor Jeremy Horder, professor of Criminal
law at the LSE. Welcome to you both. Tessa, let me start with you. 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 Keir Starmer returning from his 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 to be victim centred, Andrew should testify.
He didn't. You know that that's to paraphrase him. This was before the whole Mandel thing and. That's the first time he'd said that about. Andrew the first time previously he said it was a matter for Andrew. This is him coming front and centre and placing Andrew in the narrative. I happened to have from a good a reliable source within the palace to know that they were very displeased with this because not only had Keir Stamelot consulted the palace, but also he'd trodden on that
terrain. You know, he was muscling in with his big political nose in what they considered to be their family matter. Now scroll forward a week and a half and how things have changed. This is a story that has 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 favour is the story has been somewhat capped by Mandelson.
However, the disparity between the way in which the Labour Party are self flagellating and 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. 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 yell right there, monarchy, you know, a bit apathetic, but they'll go with it, are feeling, I think, deeply. Perturbed. But the So the other thing is that the King has come up with a statement, hasn't he? And what does that statement exactly say? And how significant is that? I think it's it's very important for what it doesn't say, it
doesn't apologize. So we have Keir Starmer saying, I apologize for appointing Madison. But what we have from the king is a 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, OK, what words? What 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 public. And we now know because there's been this corroborative e-mail sent in 2015 by Angela that that that that photograph was real. In other words, they protected Prince Andrew. And when you have the ultimate institution of state, the royal family, basically trolling, you're effectively saying to the the late Virginia Dufrey, you're a liar. That has profound consequences.
And by the way, she's no longer alive. But the significance of the King's statement in terms of what he did say is that if there were a criminal. That's the second part. He would not stand in their way. And this is also key. The King's a constitutional monarch. Really he shouldn't be prejudicial either side of a of a legal case, whether it's in America or Britain. And he made that quite clear.
He actually said in his statement, you know, that's a matter for Andrew Macbatten. You know, his, his case with the police, his but, you know, but we 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 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 hectares, that is, you know, shouted out at the king and and they were shouted down 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 hecklings long existed. I think that the mass media, which is generally on side for the monarchy tries to curate around hecklers and seen as rather sort of distasteful and
inappropriate. But it the problem is it's speaking to the majority in some ways. Those questions. 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 is forefront. And when Prince Edward, who was the first person to speak to this problem because he was bounced into it on stage, I think representing the British embassy over in Dubai and he said, well, I don't think anyone who's interested actually know Edward.
That's what everyone's thinking about at the moment. And it it was 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. 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, you know, abuse of public office, you know, was he selling or showing secrets, trade secrets to Epstein or indeed the other case, you know, the victims, the girls, Virginia, the late Virginia Jeffrey and so on. Yes, indeed. The short answer to the question of what can they do is that Andrew does not have any kind of crown immunity that applies only to the sovereign. Only to the King. Yeah, query his wife as well, don't know.
But we don't have to worry about that because the key thing is, does Andrew and he doesn't, he doesn't have immunity. So he can be summoned to in a Criminal Court in this country. Now, the position may very well be different in terms of whether he should be giving giving evidence in the United States. We'll see what comes with that. 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 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, from from Andrew Macbatten Windsor's 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, he's absolutely right that the King has said that, but what I think that means? Quite late in the day.
He has, absolutely. But I think that the timing is significant, I think because it it must be remembered that from the King's point of view, whatever you might think about this, Andrew continues consistently to deny any criminal wrongdoing. So unless and until we have substantive proof of that, then 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 when he was still a Prince. Absolutely not OK. So his legal status, yeah, having been stripped of the title has not changed. No, OK. So there are three potential
cases, aren't there? There's just a testifying before Congress over Virginia, Jeffrey and the women there is the criminal case against him on business interests here in the UK. What he was doing is you know, business envoy and then also the question of of women and underage sex here. Yes, 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 say that, but I would have thought that the most likely investigation would be the one where you have victims of alleged sexual abuse. I think that's the. Most likely investigation. Yes, I think so, because in the UK, yeah, well, I think that's right because I would say those are the ones that have the highest degree of public interest, that would command the most resources and the most
police time. It seems to me there may be more evidence in relation immediately on, in relation to the misconduct case. But whilst 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 paid that attention is being paid to those
allegations. But 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. But. I, I'm fascinated to hear you say that because I was informed this morning that Thames Valley Police, which I believe is overseeing both the criminal investigations here in the UK, has paused the inquiry with regards to abuse of women and at the moment is pursuing the one regarding possible abuse of public office when he was a trade 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 Dufres no longer even alive. And so while it might be the juicy of bone, the bigger, deeper, darker story actually in terms of hard proof, something that you can rely on. It's all there in the e-mail cache when it comes to him spilling over about Helmand province and investment in Singapore and Vietnam.
Whereas actually how do you prove a non consensual sex that took place 20 years ago? I agree that it's difficult. 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 misconduct case, although the evidence might be clear, would be in itself very damaging to the king, For example.
It, it, it, it casts a shadow on his reputation as much as it does on Andrew. Whereas in 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. But in other words you're saying while he 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. Of protected to an extent. To an extent. Which is the biggest shadow is the biggest shadow he gets, you know, he ends up in, you know, in his staying court and is convicted. That's a shadow or nothing is done. That's also a shadow, possibly a bigger shadow. Absolutely it is. But it's a question of I think where the public interest really lies and what the and where the public feeling really lies.
And I think that most people are, it seems to me, rightly concerned about the element of of possible sexual abuse that even though the evidence may be clearer on the misconduct, which I think it probably is. But to what extent does public interest dictate what actually gets investigated and finally ends up, well, I think, an indictment? It's crucial. It's. The evidence that's available. Well, the prosecutors have to
take into account two things. First of all, whether the evidence provides a reasonable prospect of conviction. So that's the evidence point. But secondly, they have to decide whether there's a public interest in prosecution essentially. And on that, that's in both cases. And that's a very wide set of considerations. There are a lot of issues there in relation to the public interest and all I'm suggesting it's not. I mean, I personally feel that
it's right to pursue this case. That is my personal view. It should be which? Case both cases. Both cases, yes, they should be including the Muskanic, and I merely predict it that there will in the end be a feeling that it wouldn't be right to pursue it. How difficult is it to prove misconduct in public office? It's a high bar because 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 public's trust.
Now there there are two factors that might lead you to think that in this case. 1 is that he allegedly disclosed information for the private financial gain of another person. That's seriousness element number one. Yeah. The second is that he may have done so as part of an exchange of favours. In other words, there's a corruption element to it.
So that's, that's seriousness element #2 and if you put those together and it's the same two issues in the Mandelson case at stake there, then you've got a case where you might say there was an abuse of the public trust. Yes, it's it's so complex on a number of levels. At the moment. If you go to the National Archives, the public records office, you will not be able to access Prince Andrew's papers as a trade envoy until 2065, now
262065. 60 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 and of course it's not normal. It's 20 years. It's. 20 years, 100% it's 20. He's now Andrew Mountbatten 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 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 need to get into those files. Well, that may be, 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 Macbatten Windsor is that other evidence is coming out that is not covered. But what's? Really interesting is Andrew Macbatten 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 rumble to what Andrew may have been doing is 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 because of this royal prerogative.
Right. But if it is 20 years, yeah, then we should be looking at the stuff now because he was active as a trade envoy in in 20. 2 thousand 2001 to 2011 I believe very active date. So arguably, yes, some of his papers we should have the. Papers 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 and so imagine if that issue that you've just raised, you know, becomes part of the public conversation.
Yeah. I mean this is really toxic stuff for the royal family and you're protecting this exclusion, which by the way we don't understand why it should exist in the 1st place for the sake of someone we all think should be investigated non trial. 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 Bible.
It was Walter Badger, I think it was 1867, his English Constitution book where he said you must not let the daylight in upon the magic. Well, OK, we need to flip that right over and let the daylight in as. Pig lights more than daylight. But the sovereign isn't. The King's not going to go. Come on, bring it on. You know, here, all my here's all my lobbying with politicians. We need 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 and it's more in their interest to kind of cut 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 this and what about the exemptions
there? What do you think, China? Well, I think that's the process we're seeing now, which I referred to as early on. It's the question the King is distancing himself from Mountbatten 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 isolate Andrew.
Does that work? Well, that is the, that is what you're getting the house on. It seems to me. And I personally think that the if whatever happens to Mountbatten Windsor, that the king will feel that he's, he's doing enough at the moment to preserve the his reputation and that of the monarchy, even though it's 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. It's the danger. Sorry, Go. On no, it's just so you have on the one hand, access to Andrew's files, which you've established as a as 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 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 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, Williams Worth and his father as the Dutchie of Cornwall. He he doesn't publish his tax returns.
He's the now the new head of the Dutchie of Cornwall, the Duke of Cornwall. We don't see them. Charles actually used to at least publish his tax returns from the the Dutchie of Cornwall. And and there is there really is no transparency and they operate under entirely separate, no inheritance tax for the sovereign to the heir apparent. They don't pay capital, capital or or corporation tax on their Dutchie profits. Which means that probably the late Queen's pay off to Andrew
was tax exempt. Which means probably we did, as a taxpayer, pay for. It so at some stage we can expect maybe even someone in the royal household, I, 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 linger the. 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 queen and you go to. That fainted to the rear mirror, doesn't it? Eventually. I don't know. I think I think we need to be able to hold up certain personalities 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 all remember this was paid in her final year. It was her Platinum Jubilee year. They needed the Andrew problem to go away. Another reason we know is 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.
Do but pay 10 to £12 million to someone if you haven't done something with and that's what the public will. Ask or. Or ask a lot of money to pay for nothing. Except what they could argue the royal family. And it's one of the reasons. And the other thing that I was told off record was that when Keir Starmer had said he should testify, was that, well, I 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 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 bought against him in 2022. Andrew is a liability.
We didn't need the 29 interview to prove that, but it sure did prove it. OK, it's 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 calling for, even if you're 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?
Well, I think legally it means that he's in broadly the same position he was when he was being interviewed by Emily Maitlis. That is to say, he, he, he, he, he will be asked questions about what he knew, what his underoath was. Yes, absolutely. He. Wasn't Underoath with Emily Maitlis, no. No, no, no. But it's going to be the similar situation. And so he is going to be asked what he knew, what his involvement was very clearly and those questions may incriminate
him or? Or that testimony before Congress, whether it's impersonal 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, 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 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 yes, you know, he might incriminate himself and end up in a, in a court of law in the United States. If you lie underoath in the United States, you can end up where Jolene Maxwell.
Is, 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 bother turning up. Yes, 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 cause you've assumed that. I don't, no, I don't assume anything.
I'm just OK, it's possible it's but you don't think. He is. Let's just know. I'm absolutely sure he isn't because he knows what would happen. But. He knows what's too dangerous way. Too dangerous? Absolutely that. So what do their family? They're all in there, but they're putting a wall around it at the same time. Several things. This is the wonderful thing about the royal family which are, and I quote David Dimbleby from his documentary The End of last year.
They're as rich as plutocrats. Actually, if you're Dutchie of Lancaster, is making profits untaxed really of over £20 million a year? Are they untaxed? Yeah, they're effectively they don't pay capital gains or corporation tax Dutchess so and and inheritance. All the stuff he got from the Queen was funnelled through Charles because from sovereign to air it doesn't you don't, you don't pay tax. So actually therefore is 10 million when one year you can probably shoulder that.
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 some level he is a compassionate man.
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 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 accused of equivalent things. I would hope, Matt, that I wouldn't cut you off. I might be furious with you.
I might be pushing you towards a congressional course and berate you every time I see you. But I would hope that I wouldn't cut you off never 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 Windsors, to do with Andrew. And one 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 gone away.
Social. Conviction, Yes, which is almost more dangerous. Which is also kind of weird, right? So he's not gonna be convicted in court. We don't want any of that to come, you know, out or to be too. Scary for the. Institution Sorry for the institution, but we're gonna never, ever see him again at a Christmas lunch. Which is morally repugnant because it was Winston Churchill, you know, said the way in which you, you treat your criminals is a is a barometer
for for judging civilisation. You know, are we gonna effectively, if you extrapolate the narrative and say, well, Andrew really should be in prison? OK, we've got no proof for 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, where this narrative's going because of the brain mob, right? Because that's where we're at at the moment. The public's deciding. And we'll, we'll, we'll ask the, the story about monarchy right to the end of the podcast. But the, the role of the Met Police and Andrew's protection officers who would have been, you know, around him while some of this stuff allegedly, supposedly possibly took place.
What did they have to answer for? What should what should they do now? I'm not sure that 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 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. But it's worth asking the question isn't. It Oh, of course, yeah.
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 have seen, that will see things that they in some circumstances might disclose. Testify about them or do do they sign an NDA with the royal family that says that they never? Well, they obviously they're going to be under confidentiality agreements.
Yeah. Confidentiality agreements shouldn't mean that you are under obligation not to report a serious crime. I think clearly that Trump's any confidentiality. But I just don't think that whatever their suspicions might have been, there would have been enough for them to say we should have gone to the police about X or Yi. Just don't see that as. Which takes us back to the question at the beginning where you said what's the most likely 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 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, Ted, I think you've got to be careful here because testimonial
evidence is evidence. And so if a woman says I was raped or I was abused by someone, that is evidence that it happened, and the mere fact that the other person denies it doesn't undermine that as evidence. OK, so can you then explain how Virginia Du Frey today is dead and and apparently no justice was done and instead a load of money across the 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 other women who may well be willing to stand up and give testimony and they need to be given support and to to find their feet and to do that. And if they do, then I think what we need to do is give credibility to their evidence. And how much credibility are you gonna give to Andrews evidence compared to one of those women? And to bring us this background to a broader question for
monarchy. That is one of the, I think the the deepest problems. We had a photograph, you know, we he. Platformed, I mean, Andrew denies any wrongdoing. He was, you know, so there's a, there's. A photograph with his arm around this girl, you know, there's and, and he said that doesn't exist. That's just, 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 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 as evidence as well as a photograph. And that's why the 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 and who? Who's giving him legal advice?
He must be getting. He's paying. For painful. Well, he, I would imagine, I would imagine he must be getting legal advice. I don't know who it's from, but it would be extraordinary if he wasn't. So yes, I would think that that must be the case, yes. OK, so let's end on the broad
question then. You know, and we've said this so many times before when there've been moments of, you know, crisis for the royal family, but is this the biggest 1 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 Damocles has hung over 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 hugely generational and that's where the royal family have a real problem. We see with the whole Harry and Meghan Ferrari, there was about 25% 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. 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 traditional symbols that the state makes you celebrate. But if that anti sentiment is then carried forward, where does the support come from when they grow up? And today I heard, I mean, obviously it came from the Republic campaign who are heavily agenda saying that today for the first time, support for
monarchy is below 50%. It is around about 50% at the moment. This has been a unprecedented drop. The first polling was around 86% in the 1980s and it's now down to 50. They're skating on increasingly thin ice. But the institution. You know, even ancient ones like the monarchy have the ability to reform themselves, to reinvent themselves. Hugely. They're tied into the. Do you think that would work, Jeremy, if they if they use this opportunity of crisis, yes, 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 McKinsey would advise them to do. To stay alive, let the daylight in, yeah. I don't see that happening. I, I think the strategy of isolating Andrew and treating him as persona non grata, as we say, is the royal family's hope to survive damaged, yes, for a period of time, but to survive this particular controversy. I I think.
And they, and that enables them also to resist these other demands on the grounds that those are quite separate. And, you know, I mean, they can look at them on their merits, but essentially they're a different thing. So wouldn't it be ironic if Keir Starmer was failed by this and and the monarchy just kind of sailed on?
Yeah, I wish I could be in on their weekly audiences at the moment, actually, because there is such a clear disparity the way in which Keir Starmer's, if you 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 in the royal family, taking no responsibility for him is a particularly cruel one, and one that means they are not taking
any accountable. So the Labour Party, the Prime Minister takes accountability, but somehow the royal family now it's just one rotten apple. It doesn't work like that. The level of privilege Andrew's exhibited is something that that that's institutionalised that level of privilege. Jeremy, you seem to be saying it's it's cruel but necessary. That would basically be in my judgement, yes. Final question then short answer.
Is the monarchy finished? The monarchy is not finished because we are a constitutional monarchy. They are baked into all areas of our state and they have huge support not only but particularly from the 4th estate. The press hand in glove 1 needs the other. So in the end, they'll keep moving forward. Yep, Charles and Camilla and William collectively will save the monarchy.
Yes. For the time being, but but the the bigger problem is will the I think the bigger question here is the existential 1. 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 was, for example, in the 1980s, which is a different question, a very different question. But when an institution that's based on popularity is no longer working for the nation, what then? Well, then it might be finished.
But then rooting it out will take some time. 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. Monarchy, but I don't get a vote. Jeremy Horde, Tessa Dunham, thank you very much indeed. That's it from the forecast. Hope you enjoyed it. See you soon.