The King banishes Andrew - but will it be enough?

This is a Global Player original podcast. Am I right in thinking you threw a a birthday party um for Epstein's girlfriend Golen Maxwell at Sandringham? N no, it was a shooting weekend. A shooting weekend. Just a straightforward straightforward shooting weekend. That was Prince Andrew speaking to me in November of twenty nineteen.

It looks like Andrew, as we must now get used to calling him, will be spending a lot more time at Sandringham. The decision of the king to strip him of his title of prince to strip him of the Royal Lodge at Windsor was dramatic, jaw dropping. But will it be enough for the royal family to finally deal with the Andrew problem? Welcome to the newsagents. The news agents. It's John. It's Emily. It's Lewis.

And to give a rough timeline on events, we had been due to give you an episode that was a QA today so sorry if your questions aren't being answered, but we then repaired to a pub last night, the three of us, with the whole of the newsagent's team, because our dear cameraman Rory is going on to Pastas New. And we were in the pub probably for about an hour, hour and a half, when Mr Goodall produces his phone with the breaking news on it.

that the prince had been stripped of his princedom and would no longer be living in Royal Lodge and we all went Gosh Well I didn't think I don't think the word was gosh, but it was something like that.

It is an astonishing moment in the history of this royal family. It could not have been more pointed, and it could not in its own way, a very royal way, an understated way, but nonetheless have been more excoriating. When it says His Majesty is today Initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew, who will now be known as Andrew Mampbat and Windsor, it then says that his lease on the Royal Lodge

will be removed. And then that last paragraph Where they say, Their Majesties, i.e. the King and Queen, wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been and will remain with the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.

That cannot be read to me in any other way than effectively saying that the King believes the accuser, Virginia Geffray, Does not believe Prince Andrew, his brother who has always denied these allegations, and not only in word but indeed, to remove to formally strip his younger brother of not just the Dukedom, but the princely title itself.

It's basically without modern precedent. Th the cla c closest thing or any precedent at all in the history of the Royal Foundation, the closest you'd have to get to is going back to the sort of early twentieth century when The King George at the time removed various titles from sort of German relatives, quite distant German relatives in the First World War, but nothing like this. Someone who is so close in line to the throne itself. To actually have his princedom removed is without precedent.

Yeah, and although this feels like it came out of the blue, or as you say, in the pub, there was an inkling that something was afoot as early as last Thursday. Now we reported earlier this week on the news agents that Some kind of news was expected when on Thursday of last week crews were called to Royal Lodge for a passing traffic camera shot. What did that mean? It meant that Newsrooms were alerted that there might be a shot of interest.

if they wanted to send a camera crew down to Royal Lodge at about eight o'clock last Thursday. And In the end, it got too big. As we know, there were sort of too many crews there. There was a chopper, there was a helicopter, and the announcement or the shot itself was pulled. What did that mean? It meant that King Charles had imagined driving through or up to the gates or through the gates of Royal Lodge to basically read his brother Prince Andrew The Riot Act.

And the palace decided that it was called off'cause it all felt too much, but it didn't mean the story had gone away. Quite the opposite. It would not have been anywhere near the scale that we saw last night if it had happened on Thursday. And so I guess the question is, what happened between then and yesterday? Well, on the one hand the king had more of a chance to think about what he wanted to do. He faced that very public heckle at Litchfield Cathedral on Monday.

And there were questions that had started to mount about whether the sovereign had a real grip on the Andrew question. He did. He always did, but it had to be managed carefully. And I was speaking last night to Those who are very close to the King and Queen. And from what I understand, the talks began again on Tuesday. People close to the monarch were asked their thoughts on Tuesday night. The talks continued into Wednesday morning and were then signed off.

And something to be honest that I had not properly understood and I think many in the media had not properly understood was that Prince William was not actually the one driving this. We'd all understood that the real sort of heft of this move came from Prince William. I I was told last night that it is Prince William actually who's most concerned about

the state of his uncle's mental health, something that he takes very seriously. His his work and Kate's work has been very close uh to the issues of mental health. And I was also told that there was a bit of discomfort, maybe that's too strong. There was a bit of

nervousness from the siblings, from Prince Edward, from Princess Anne, who didn't want their eldest brother to go too hard on their other brother, Andrew. But it was the king himself who had nerves of steel And again, contrary to what we read in the newspapers. I heard that originally there was extremely strong pushback from Andrew, who was trying to find every means and every reasons he could to resist this. And when I asked last night what brought Andrew around.

I was told that the monarch had simply made him see the ultimate threat. In other words, and this is a phrase that was used to me, I don't think it's the the words that the king used, you'll topple us all. In other words, Andrew did not want that on his shoulders.

the the idea was that the king had put to him something in the tenor of, would your mother really want to see you putting at risk the whole establishment? Which I think goes back to the chat that we had earlier this week, which is About how public perception and public mood was way ahead of certainly where Parliament was, where MPs were, and even where the palace, possibly even where the king was. And they suddenly got this sense that things were

I mean, not precarious. It wasn't like the whole thing was gonna end overnight, but the the questions were being raised in the public's imagination, and the king thought he had to move decisively and fast. And he had to make Andrew see that this was yes, possibly an existential moment. Yeah. I think that is absolutely fascinating, what you've gleaned from your contacts, Emily. Um particularly that this isn't just about

Andrew and the problem of Andrew and it just being about him, it's about all of them. And that unless they did something very, very Dramatic then All of them could be in some kind of jeopardy. as a result of it. And you can imagine the machinations, you know Yeah, I mean of you know, of just any family having to deal with this, but a family, the royal family, under a perpetual microscope for anything that they do and the analysis that it will bring.

That you know, it'll be difficult enough to do something like this even if it was your own brother and you were just leading a quiet life in s you know, suburban Britain or whatever it happens to be. But this was in the glare of publicity. I'm also fascinated, Emily, because there was so much to dig into there. What you said about and I think that, you know, th it has felt like it is open season on Andrew at the moment, that the concerns within the family of

Guy, steady, this is someone who might be in a fragile state right now. Yeah, that that was a big twist for me actually. And we we'd assume that William was the steely one, but actually I think they are having those conversations. They do need to go carefully and it is

you know, at the heart, I know we call it a firm and we call it a monarchy and we call it an establishment, but it is a family. And I think there were definitely voices being raised, you know, in the lead up to this. I'm not saying this was all on Tuesday and Wednesday uh night, but in the lead up to this We do need to remember that there is somebody at the heart of this who who may be feeling incredibly mentally fragile. And I think that was coming, sounds like, from what I was told.

from Prince William. Well he might end up more mentally fragile because there is talk. I mean Chris Bryant, Labour Minister, was on a doing a media round this morning and he was asked uh about this. They said that the government is fully supportive of this action, that the Prime Minister is fully supportive of it. He inevitably will have been

consulted about it. But he was asked as to whether the government would support if the US House of Representatives wants to continue its inquiries into Epstein and the links that he had with various people, including Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, whether he ought to go and go before Congress. And Chris Bryant, on behalf of the government, said well now that he's an ordinary person, a member of the public, to use his words, like anybody else.

Then yes, if that's what Congress was, I'm sure Chris Bryant said, I'm sure that he would comply. But I think that it is a mark and it has to be, I think. a measure of how rattled and deeply, deeply concerned the king is and the monarchy is, and probably to some extent the government might be, as to what impact this could yet have on the royal family and the monarchy itself. And I think that, you know, Charles who

knows that as a result of the long, long length of his mother's reign, knows that he is a transitional figure for the monarchy, his reign is going to be short. This is easily the most important decision that he's made since he's become king. It may be the most important decision he makes.

during his reign. He's trying to quarterise a wound, basically for his son. He doesn't clearly, I think, want William to have to deal with this. There's been all his reports in the newspapers, haven't there, about the idea that when Charles is gone, if Andrew is still around, then William would be harsher. Charles has decided that he's not going to bequeath that legacy or bequeath that problem.

to his son. And it seems to me to be a seminal moment in his reign. I couldn't agree more. I also think that there's something else about you know, I've been speaking to people in government this morning. And, you know, they're saying, look, of course we were consulted about all of this and we weren't surprised when the statement came out last night. I get the impression that it's very different from the last major moment.

Which was of course the death of Diana and the reaction that took place after her death. and the Queen and the rest of the royal family staying up in Balmoral, when it looked like the Blair government was kind of being very proactive. in telling the royal family what they needed to do to be in line with public opinion and, you know, Your Majesty, the public need to see you back at Buckingham Palace and we can't just have the flag flying at half mast over there. You need to come back.

I think this government is very happy to say, No, no, no. This was the king sorting this out himself and not trying to interject themselves. Although I think it's undoubtedly true that one of the reasons, one of the factors the palace would have moved in this way is because they would have observed and seen what we've been talking about for the last week or two, which is the rising parliamentary pressure which was coming from all sides of the House.

To do something more dramatic. And of course, there are still other things that could be done. You might think that, you know, once you've taken the Princeton away, what is there left?

is worth just noting, and this would be a matter for the government, and it would be a matter for Parliament, is worth noting that Andrew remains eighth in line to the throne. Theoretically there could be some cataclysm, and Andrew could be our head of state. Obviously that is deeply unlikely, but for him to remain, it seems to me, In the line of succession.

feels pretty absurd when you're saying that he doesn't deserve being a prince. But theoretically at least could he could be king. That's crazy. I think the main thing that the king has done at this point is put distance between himself and Andrew. And that is obviously geographic. As we said at the beginning, Andrew will be moving to Sandringham. We don't know

the cottage that he'll be living in, but when I was asked about the size of the cottage, I was directed to think of it as more of a villa, something with at least six bedrooms. So probably not what most people have in their mind. And the question I asked was what happens then to his close protection, to his securities, bodyguards? And I was told that it would be light touch, it will no longer be at the taxpayer's expense.

And I think this does open A much bigger question that you were starting to talk about with Chris Bryant: that once there isn't that sense of immunity. Clearly nobody is above the law, but there was a sense of a protective circle around Andrew whilst he was inside the royal family. When that is gone, when he's a private citizen,

then if the police want to question him, if the Met police want to question him, that becomes much easier. If Congress want to call him, that becomes much easier. Without titles The forces of the law know that they have, if you like, the king's sanction to do their job without dragging him into it.

And I think the statement that you read at the beginning confirms the sovereign's thoughts that places the victims at the center. And it's a very confusing line that, just to dig into it for a second, because they don't mention Andrew and Duffrey by name. They don't even mention Epstein by name. Clearly Andrew has denied all the allegations. That Virginia Dufray made against him. And so I was curious to understand whether the monarch now considers Andrew guilty.

And I was told that, roughly phrased, they think he's a privileged, overprivileged, entitled man out of step with the world, out of step with the modern world. Is he an absolute criminal? Probably not. But they'll never really know the involvement that he had. And this allows that sense of distance, as I said at the beginning. It allows the police to come in if they need to. It allows Congress to come if they need to. And I think that is

A very important part of what has happened here that the the king is actually saying, I'm hands off now. The only thing I'd say is right, uh one of the reasons that this is so damaging and potentially still really damaging, who knows, maybe even existential for the royal family. Let's be honest.

The king can talk about putting distance between himself and Andrew at this point as much as he wants, but this family have protected this guy for a long, long time. The late Queen protected this guy, she's his favourite son, for a long time. He was an HRH until twenty nineteen.

He was a trade envoy until what, twenty eleven. This is a guy who is still gonna be living at the king's expense. We say it's private expense, but as we've just talked about on the show before, we're private and public ends for the royal family.

I dunno. No no one's ever been able to explain it to me. So they've taken this maximal action now because they've been forced to do so by events. That's the truth. This is an institution which has protected him. That is the cold harsh truth. Yes, that is the cold harsh truth. But I think that the king has total plausible deniability in the sense that he wasn't king

when all of this was erupting and his mother paid for the settlement, we understand. You know, i that that is how much labour it takes. So all of those things, you know, the Queen who had this kind of seemingly blemish free record all the time that she was on the throne. Prince Andrew is maybe a black mark in the way that she dealt with that afterwards and not kind of seeing where things were. But I do think that you know, is has the king been radical? Yes.

Is it enough to quarterise the wound, as it were, that Andrew has left? I think possibly, in the sense that. Realistically, this is a maximalist position that the king has taken. Okay. Sure. He's not living in a two up, two down but at the same time it is a mighty, mighty fall from grace. Now yeah, sure there are gonna say some people who'll be someone else. Th there are gonna be some people who will want his nose rubbed in the dirt even more. But I think that the kind of sense of it is now.

Okay, that statement from the King last night was pretty emphatic and decisive and that therefore maybe yes look every camera of every news organization is pointed Uh the gates that lead to Royal Lodge in Windsor right now in the hope of catching a snap of Andrew arriving, leaving, whatever. They've probably got to

But maybe by the middle of next week it will kind of th w what what new lines have we got? Well it depends what else comes out, doesn't it? And we wonder or you gotta wonder whether the Royal Family decides to do this because they know that something else will emerge. I was told last night it wasn't because they were waiting for another shoe to drop. it was that they thought we want to get ahead of this story for the first time. I do think what the King has done though is actually

Seminal. He's done what no other world leader has done in responding to public opinion and in putting the victim's testimony right at the heart of what he's doing. He's he's essentially said, It is in my power to do something and I'm going to do something. And there are lots of world leaders, there are lots of heads of state who aren't doing anything. I mean, start with Trump, who manifestly hasn't released

key Epstein information that could lead to more people coming forward. We forget when we fixate on Andrew. that there were many friends of Epstein and there were many traffickers of these young women, girls at the time. Those girls have come forward. They've given their names to the FBI. They've given their names to investigators.

And very few governments have taken any kind of action at all. There are questions for the French government, there's questions for the Israeli governments, there's questions for the US administration right now. And the king, I think.

Has taken a lead and that's something yeah we should be pretty proud of. Well we will pause there because we're gonna take a break, but when we come back, we're gonna be putting a question about whether this whole affair raises the specter of republicanism in Britain. Here in Edinburgh. Reporting from the heart of the Listen on our free Or the new LBC app. LBC, leading Britain's conversation.

The news agents. So as I said at the top of the episode, today's was meant to be a question and answer session before we all went down the path. Um we're gonna take one of the questions that was sent into it. that we were going to answer today, which is Is the time finally right to seriously explore republicanism? Surely everyone can see how preposterous the idea of a modern monarchy is. And please don't suggest it would decimate tourist numbers.

And that is from Snoogle Silky on Twitter. Thank you, Snoogal. Right. Go on, Lewis. Unload. No I look, I think that the Andrew affair shows that for all of the virtues you can have sometimes with constitutional monarchy and the fact that it's nonpartisan head of state And the fact that um people can kind of get emotionally invested in it and so on. I think that it shows and illustrates the problems with it. And those are twofold. One is

You get a badon and there's nothing you can do about it, because he is who he is by birth, and he's born into it. And yes, they're getting rid of the the Princetom now, which does, and I can see why they haven't wanted to do that, because it basically makes a show of how absurd it is and how confected it all is. But he's still basically associated with him. He's still, as we were saying, in line to the throne, eighth in line to the throne. And he could have been king.

you know, if something had happened to Charles when he was younger before he'd had children, he could have been the king. Now you can have an argument about whether he would have ended up the same way. if he'd been the heir to the throne as opposed to the spare. But it's entirely credible that it is. We've had badens before and there's nothing you can do about it unless you decide to go through the whole process

Parliament gets involved and basically write them out of it. So I think it does show the dangers of monarchy. And you know what? Actually I've always thought that the strongest argument for a republic is actually what it does to these individuals. Emily you were talking about the fact that it's a family. It is weird that we breed this family to be our head of state. It screws them up.

time and time again, whether it's Margaret, whether it's Harry, whether it's Andrew, or whoever, it is a litany of sadness and torment. And is it any surprise when you fuse state and family in that way?

You know, I think it's crazy. I think that the The stuff that you're talking about, Lewis, is exactly why we saw the move from the King last night and You've only got to go online to sort of see that Republican voices like that are growing and they're getting a little bit more confident and a little bit more

articulate about saying, well, do we really need this? You know, if it all ends in, you know, friend of a nonce Andrew, is that really what we want to promote as our royal family? And I think the king is Highly aware that the monarchy has to be something different. It has to be a narrative of good work being done. You know, if you look at the past two weeks. He has been incredibly cohesive in a sort of community way, whether it's the trip to the Vatican, it's the first time

And Monica's prayed with the Pope for like five hundred years. Uh, he went up to the synagogue in Manchester after the stabbing there that deeply affected the Jewish community. And at a time when Actually there isn't much trust in our politicians. It's not like we're all Jumping around and going, God, we just love who we voted for. We love those in power. We love the shape of our our parliament. We're not saying that.

ac yn ymwneud â phobl sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n That explains why the king just thought, Okay, you have to be brutal. I have to be brutal. If I'm not brutal about a brother, then the whole thing comes tumbling down. Yeah, I I so I ca I came back from America in twenty twenty two, the year of kind of when politics melted down. And I thought, God, we've become as divided as a sci society post Brexit as America almost.

And then the Queen died and I thought, actually no, there is still a glue that binds this country together and it was the royal family and everyone kind of coming to commune and coming to pay their respects. to her Majesty and the royal funeral which got record numbers of people watching and feeling as one as a nation. And I thought, Well, that is better glue.

than Donald Trump, frankly, uh being your head of state. Now, okay, I accept a lot of that could be down to the figure of Elizabeth who had, you know, reigned over this country for all my adult life, all my life. Um and then I listened to Eugene Levy, the actor from Shits Creek, interviewing Prince William the other day. And it seemed absolutely clear to me that Prince William thought that the royal family was in Shits Creek as well. And that it needed to change quite dramatically.

If it was to kind of meet the challenges of the future of a millennial generation of Gen Z who might not buy into the royal family quite as much. as, you know, the old fashioned view of royalty. And I thought it was kind of remarkable and it was remarkable that the prince hadn't chosen to make a big speech at a some huge set piece.

It was an interview with a a Canadian actor that he says, Yeah, believe me when I say we've got to change and we've got to change a lot And I think the brilliance of the Royal Family is actually recognising that it does have to move with the times. And you compare the Royal Family to fifty years ago or a hundred years ago

It has continued to evolve. Do you think you think it's moved with the ti how how has it moved with the times recently? Oh the stuffiness, the stiffness. Oh no, it's not stuffy at all. No, no, no. But comparatively speaking, for fifty years ago when you know we were subject We still are subjects to I don't think that's how

the royal family expect to be treated. Oh, I don't know. I don't know. I mean like you hear the stories and read the stuff about look at Andrew himself, the way he treats people and the all of the stories about that I mean I don't know, I don't Well Andrew's a buffoon. You could the y we could we could We could have if they so chose, we could have a very different sort of monarchy that was much, much less pompous.

much, much less much uh less ceremonial than it is, much slimmed down on a European style model. That would be sensible. They don't want that. They want to maintain they think they're the Habsburg for medicine. I think that if you listen to that Prince William interview with Eugene Levy.

He clearly can't stand or he hasn't got time for all the flummery. And you hear some of the sort of the people I w I was with somebody who's kind of, you know, got some fancy role and he wanted to get Prince William just to come along and dress up in a silly costume to be part of some and and Prince William just says no way, I'm not I don't want to be part of that and so there are f you know, there are old bits of the Empire that just can't stand Prince William's view.

on the need to modernise. And I think all power to his elbow that that's what he wants to bring. Well we'll see. Yeah, I think it's the knockout days are firmly over, are they? I mean it wasn't so long ago that I think it was Andrew and Yeah, it was Andrew and Fergie. Right. I d I do think you have to sort of, you know, get over the idea. I don't I'm not sure how

easily our monarchy would slim down to the point where they're all gonna ride bikes around Denmark. You know, I don't think that's gonna happen. I think if you accept a monarchy and you don't like the idea of a palace, you're probably in trouble. You know, we we kind of have to suck up what we've got here. And we do have incredible

ceremony and we do have an incredible panoply and we do have, you know, soldiers in bare hats and we do have the whole sort of pumpkin coach and all the rest of it. And I think that If you want to try and say, Well, could you please be a monarch? Could you please be under intense scrutiny? Could you please devote every single day of your life? towards duty and the thought of this country and the shape of this country and your duty. But please could you just, you know

go back to living in your own house on the you know, the edge of a city. I don't think that's gonna work. Do we need the Duke of Norfolk and Somerset and Grafton and Richmond and St Almonds and Beaufort and the Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Edward and Prince Richard and Prince Edward the Prince Second Cousin? We don't. This is what I'm saying.

It's crazy. It is a medieval it is a medieval institution. And honestly I do not buy it, John, I have to say, I fundamentally disagree. I think it I think it's spin. The idea that they've modernized in any serious way, the idea they've come up with the twenty-first century, they have not. They have not.

mind was sort of formed and ideas were formed about these things in the 1950s and 1960s. I do not think for a moment, in any serious way. What has what's Charles done to modernise the place? Charles has literally been more modern, more on

of the issues of the day than anyone in politics has. He's driven the environmental agenda much more firmly, much more Oh yeah. His his views on architecture are very modern. No, hang on. I th I think I think Lewis you're being completely unfair and I'm gonna totally disagree with you now.

I was for years an ambassador for the Prince's Trust where he was working, you know, with the people that you would cross the road not to have to confront, because they were dropouts, drug addicts, homeless, all the rest of it. And the Princess Trust did really fantastic work.

in terms of trying to give these people a second chance. His views on agriculture, his views on sustainability, his views on the environment have put him up. And he's interfered with British democratically elected British governments for years and years. And the thing cost Five hundred million pounds a year. It is mount we don't need it.

We could have a constitutional monarch and a crown prince like every other monarchy in Europe and do away with all of the cost and the nonsense. And you know what? We wouldn't have an Andrew problem, because years ago His services would have been dispatched with'cause he could have led a private life because as soon as William was born, he was not necessary. And we could have had an elected president who was Good. Yeah. Great. Um

Chasing out people on the streets with their ICE agents. Oh yeah,'cause that's their'cause that's the alternative. It's either ICE or Charles. There are plenty of countries around the world that have Right, should we take this down the pub'cause it feels like we could go on on this for about another two hours. We'll be back in just a moment.

The news agents. Sorry we couldn't bring you a question and answer today. We'll do it probably next Friday. But have a lovely weekend and we'll see you on Monday. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye for now. This has been a Global Player Original Production.