Latest / The Fourcast / Could Andrew go to prison over Epstein emails?

Transcript

Could Andrew go to prison over Epstein emails? · The Fourcast

0:00
This is a story that has totally run ahead of the palace.
0:03
They've lost control of the narrative.
0:06
The disparity between the way in which the Labour Party is self
0:10
flagellating and apologizing and decapitating themselves, and in
0:14
comparison with the royal family who finally had managed to admit
0:18
to concern but no apology, is. It's a gulf of accountability.
0:22
It's extraordinary. Andrew does not have any kind of
0:26
Crown immunity that applies only to the sovereign, so he can be
0:29
summoned in a Criminal Court in this country.
0:31
Is the monarchy finished? Hello and welcome to the
0:39
forecast. Andrew Mountbatten.
0:40
Windsor is once again at the centre of serious allegations
0:44
connected to the late paedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein,
0:47
with police now assessing whether a criminal case will
0:50
follow and his brother the King not apparently standing in their
0:54
way. So could the former Prince
0:55
really face a trial and even jail time?
0:58
But beyond the legal questions lies a deeper one about power,
1:01
privilege, and of course, accountability.
1:04
Will this just be another royal scandal that fades with the news
1:07
cycle or a real moment of reckoning for the crown itself?
1:12
Joining me today to discuss this is Doctor Tessa Dunlop, royal
1:15
historian and host of the podcast where politics Meeks
1:17
History and Professor Jeremy Horder, professor of Criminal
1:21
law at the LSE. Welcome to you both.
1:23
Tessa, let me start with you. Things have changed quite
1:27
dramatically, haven't they, in the last week.
1:28
Tell us how. Well to give you some idea of
1:31
just how much things have changed, you will recall Keir
1:34
Starmer returning from his Asia tour and he shot from the hip in
1:39
an unprecedented way. So much so that it made the
1:42
front pages of some of the Sunday papers when he said that
1:45
in order to be victim centred, Andrew should testify.
1:49
He didn't. You know that that's to
1:50
paraphrase him. This was before the whole Mandel
1:53
thing and. That's the first time he'd said
1:55
that about. Andrew the first time previously
1:57
he said it was a matter for Andrew.
1:58
This is him coming front and centre and placing Andrew in the
2:01
narrative. I happened to have from a good a
2:05
reliable source within the palace to know that they were
2:07
very displeased with this because not only had Keir
2:11
Stamelot consulted the palace, but also he'd trodden on that
2:15
terrain. You know, he was muscling in
2:17
with his big political nose in what they considered to be their
2:20
family matter. Now scroll forward a week and a
2:23
half and how things have changed.
2:26
This is a story that has totally run ahead of the palace.
2:31
They hate that they like to be able to curate everything.
2:34
They've lost control of the narrative and the only thing
2:37
that's arguably in some ways playing in their favour is the
2:40
story has been somewhat capped by Mandelson.
2:43
However, the disparity between the way in which the Labour
2:48
Party are self flagellating and apologizing and decapitating
2:51
themselves, and in comparison with the royal family who
2:54
finally had managed to admit to concern but no apology is.
3:00
A gulf of accountability. It's extraordinary.
3:02
And shame as well. Yeah, it's appalling.
3:03
And I think the general public, most of whom sort of sit in the
3:06
middle and go yell right there, monarchy, you know, a bit
3:09
apathetic, but they'll go with it, are feeling, I think,
3:12
deeply. Perturbed.
3:12
But the So the other thing is that the King has come up with a
3:15
statement, hasn't he? And what does that statement
3:17
exactly say? And how significant is that?
3:21
I think it's it's very important for what it doesn't say, it
3:24
doesn't apologize. So we have Keir Starmer saying,
3:27
I apologize for appointing Madison.
3:30
But what we have from the king is a sentiment, an idea really,
3:35
that he's already almost done enough because it says the King
3:37
has made clear in words and through unprecedented actions
3:41
his profound concern at allegations.
3:43
And you think, OK, what words? What unprecedented actions.
3:46
I'll just leave that hanging and perhaps you can come up with the
3:48
answers there. But he doesn't say sorry, sorry.
3:51
We stood by our man, the Prince from 2011 when that photograph
3:55
was put out in the public. And we now know because there's
3:58
been this corroborative e-mail sent in 2015 by Angela that that
4:02
that that photograph was real. In other words, they protected
4:06
Prince Andrew. And when you have the ultimate
4:10
institution of state, the royal family, basically trolling,
4:14
you're effectively saying to the the late Virginia Dufrey, you're
4:18
a liar. That has profound consequences.
4:21
And by the way, she's no longer alive.
4:22
But the significance of the King's statement in terms of
4:25
what he did say is that if there were a criminal.
4:27
That's the second part. He would not stand in their way.
4:30
And this is also key. The King's a constitutional
4:32
monarch. Really he shouldn't be
4:34
prejudicial either side of a of a legal case, whether it's in
4:39
America or Britain. And he made that quite clear.
4:42
He actually said in his statement, you know, that's a
4:46
matter for Andrew Macbatten. You know, his, his case with the
4:49
police, his but, you know, but we are open.
4:51
We are open to be cooperative. In other words, drawing a line
4:55
between him and his brother. But can the can the royal family
4:58
do that? Is there a clear line between?
5:00
This because there's the law and we'll talk about that in a
5:02
second. And then there's politics.
5:03
Politics around the monarchy, around the crown, the firm
5:06
indeed. And I know it's only one or two
5:08
hectares, that is, you know, shouted out at the king and and
5:11
they were shouted down by the crowd around him.
5:14
But this has happened twice now. It has I.
5:15
Don't think the Queen ever got heckled.
5:17
No. Well, I think hecklings long
5:19
existed. I think that the mass media,
5:21
which is generally on side for the monarchy tries to curate
5:24
around hecklers and seen as rather sort of distasteful and
5:28
inappropriate. But it the problem is it's
5:31
speaking to the majority in some ways.
5:33
Those questions. How long have you known?
5:35
And it wasn't even a rude Heckle.
5:36
It wasn't an egg or something, but it was a question that I
5:39
think is forefront. And when Prince Edward, who was
5:42
the first person to speak to this problem because he was
5:44
bounced into it on stage, I think representing the British
5:48
embassy over in Dubai and he said, well, I don't think anyone
5:50
who's interested actually know Edward.
5:53
That's what everyone's thinking about at the moment.
5:56
And it it was extraordinary that they thought they could do that.
5:59
And that again, speaks to the level of sort of entitlement and
6:04
almost a detachment from reality.
6:07
Yeah. Jeremy the when it comes to the
6:09
law, yes. What can they do now?
6:12
What do you think they will do now regarding Andrew and in what
6:15
particular case? I mean, because there are two
6:17
areas. There's there's, you know, abuse
6:19
of public office, you know, was he selling or showing secrets,
6:22
trade secrets to Epstein or indeed the other case, you know,
6:26
the victims, the girls, Virginia, the late Virginia
6:29
Jeffrey and so on. Yes, indeed.
6:32
The short answer to the question of what can they do is that
6:37
Andrew does not have any kind of crown immunity that applies only
6:41
to the sovereign. Only to the King.
6:43
Yeah, query his wife as well, don't know.
6:45
But we don't have to worry about that because the key thing is,
6:48
does Andrew and he doesn't, he doesn't have immunity.
6:52
So he can be summoned to in a Criminal Court in this country.
6:57
Now, the position may very well be different in terms of whether
7:00
he should be giving giving evidence in the United States.
7:03
We'll see what comes with that. But I think that what's
7:07
happened, of course, as we all know, is that the king has
7:10
created distance between himself and Andrew by stripping of his
7:13
titles. So that means they're not bound
7:15
together in quite the same way. He's not part of the firm, if
7:18
you like, in quite the same way that he was before.
7:20
Secondly, there's been this from the point of Andrew's, from from
7:24
Andrew Macbatten Windsor's point of view, this very ominous
7:27
statement from the King that he won't stand in the way of any
7:30
criminal investigation. And of course, he's absolutely
7:33
right that the King has said that, but what I think that
7:36
means? Quite late in the day.
7:37
He has, absolutely. But I think that the timing is
7:41
significant, I think because it it must be remembered that from
7:45
the King's point of view, whatever you might think about
7:48
this, Andrew continues consistently to deny any
7:51
criminal wrongdoing. So unless and until we have
7:56
substantive proof of that, then the King would not be expected,
8:01
I think, to make an adverse statement about his brother.
8:04
And just just to clarify one point, there was no immunity for
8:07
him whatsoever, even when he was still a Prince.
8:10
Absolutely not OK. So his legal status, yeah,
8:14
having been stripped of the title has not changed.
8:16
No, OK. So there are three potential
8:20
cases, aren't there? There's just a testifying before
8:23
Congress over Virginia, Jeffrey and the women there is the
8:29
criminal case against him on business interests here in the
8:33
UK. What he was doing is you know,
8:34
business envoy and then also the question of of women and
8:38
underage sex here. Yes, right.
8:41
Three cases. How likely is it, do you think,
8:43
that he'll end up in the dock for one of those three, or
8:45
perhaps all of them? It's extremely difficult to say.
8:48
I mean, I know that's frustrating when people say
8:50
that, but I would have thought that the most likely
8:55
investigation would be the one where you have victims of
9:00
alleged sexual abuse. I think that's the.
9:02
Most likely investigation. Yes, I think so, because in the
9:05
UK, yeah, well, I think that's right because I would say those
9:09
are the ones that have the highest degree of public
9:11
interest, that would command the most resources and the most
9:15
police time. It seems to me there may be more
9:17
evidence in relation immediately on, in relation to the
9:21
misconduct case. But whilst there maybe will be a
9:26
strong case of misconduct in public office and some of us
9:28
have been arguing that about his activities for years, it's only
9:31
now that we're being paid that attention is being paid to those
9:35
allegations. But in the end, a breach of
9:39
public trust in relation to the disclosure of information is not
9:42
of the same order as sexual offending, which is obviously
9:45
extremely serious. But.
9:48
I, I'm fascinated to hear you say that because I was informed
9:51
this morning that Thames Valley Police, which I believe is
9:53
overseeing both the criminal investigations here in the UK,
9:57
has paused the inquiry with regards to abuse of women and at
10:03
the moment is pursuing the one regarding possible abuse of
10:07
public office when he was a trade envoy.
10:10
And we know historically it's incredibly hard for women to
10:14
bring sexual predators to justice because the two chief
10:17
witnesses are the accused and the accuser.
10:19
The case of Virginia Dufres no longer even alive.
10:23
And so while it might be the juicy of bone, the bigger,
10:26
deeper, darker story actually in terms of hard proof, something
10:32
that you can rely on. It's all there in the e-mail
10:34
cache when it comes to him spilling over about Helmand
10:37
province and investment in Singapore and Vietnam.
10:39
Whereas actually how do you prove a non consensual sex that
10:44
took place 20 years ago? I agree that it's difficult.
10:47
It's a question of where the public interest lies.
10:49
And it seems to me that there is a case for saying that pursuing
10:55
the misconduct case, although the evidence might be clear,
10:58
would be in itself very damaging to the king, For example.
11:03
It, it, it, it casts a shadow on his reputation as much as it
11:05
does on Andrew. Whereas in relation to the
11:07
sexual offending, you're not, you're not going to worry about
11:09
that because it's much more important to get justice for
11:12
victims of sexual offending than it is to worry about the
11:14
reputation. But in other words you're saying
11:16
while he has no immunity being an ex Prince and didn't even
11:20
when he was a Prince, you're saying he does actually have
11:22
immunity because of the family he belongs to.
11:25
Well, he doesn't have immunity, No, it's a question.
11:27
Of protected to an extent. To an extent.
11:29
Which is the biggest shadow is the biggest shadow he gets, you
11:32
know, he ends up in, you know, in his staying court and is
11:35
convicted. That's a shadow or nothing is
11:38
done. That's also a shadow, possibly a
11:40
bigger shadow. Absolutely it is.
11:43
But it's a question of I think where the public interest really
11:46
lies and what the and where the public feeling really lies.
11:49
And I think that most people are, it seems to me, rightly
11:52
concerned about the element of of possible sexual abuse that
11:56
even though the evidence may be clearer on the misconduct, which
11:59
I think it probably is. But to what extent does public
12:01
interest dictate what actually gets investigated and finally
12:05
ends up, well, I think, an indictment?
12:07
It's crucial. It's.
12:07
The evidence that's available. Well, the prosecutors have to
12:10
take into account two things. First of all, whether the
12:12
evidence provides a reasonable prospect of conviction.
12:15
So that's the evidence point. But secondly, they have to
12:18
decide whether there's a public interest in prosecution
12:20
essentially. And on that, that's in both
12:23
cases. And that's a very wide set of
12:25
considerations. There are a lot of issues there
12:27
in relation to the public interest and all I'm suggesting
12:30
it's not. I mean, I personally feel that
12:34
it's right to pursue this case. That is my personal view.
12:36
It should be which? Case both cases.
12:38
Both cases, yes, they should be including the Muskanic, and I
12:40
merely predict it that there will in the end be a feeling
12:45
that it wouldn't be right to pursue it.
12:46
How difficult is it to prove misconduct in public office?
12:50
It's a high bar because you have to approve not merely that
12:54
something was done that was wrong, that shouldn't have been
12:56
done, but there was an abuse of the public's trust.
12:59
Now there there are two factors that might lead you to think
13:02
that in this case. 1 is that he allegedly disclosed information
13:07
for the private financial gain of another person.
13:09
That's seriousness element number one.
13:11
Yeah. The second is that he may have
13:13
done so as part of an exchange of favours.
13:16
In other words, there's a corruption element to it.
13:18
So that's, that's seriousness element #2 and if you put those
13:22
together and it's the same two issues in the Mandelson case at
13:25
stake there, then you've got a case where you might say there
13:29
was an abuse of the public trust.
13:32
Yes, it's it's so complex on a number of levels.
13:36
At the moment. If you go to the National
13:39
Archives, the public records office, you will not be able to
13:43
access Prince Andrew's papers as a trade envoy until 2065, now
13:51
262065. 60 year. Yeah, to guarantee that
13:55
basically that he's dead by the time you have access to his
13:58
papers. So in terms.
13:59
That's not normal though, is. It and of course it's not
14:01
normal. It's 20 years.
14:02
It's. 20 years, 100% it's 20. He's now Andrew Mountbatten
14:05
Windsor. He's no longer.
14:07
But at the moment, you still can't, from what I gather, you
14:10
still cannot access those files. So if we're talking about full
14:13
transparency and the king saying we're leaning into this, what
14:16
does it actually mean? Does that exemption get lifted?
14:19
Because in order to really dig down into Andrew as a trade
14:23
envoy, we need to get into those files.
14:26
Well, that may be, I mean, I can't answer the question about
14:28
whether it could be lifted in certain circumstances.
14:30
I mean, that might very well be. But the trouble for Andrew
14:33
Macbatten Windsor is that other evidence is coming out that is
14:36
not covered. But what's?
14:37
Really interesting is Andrew Macbatten Windsor often pops up
14:40
in other People's Court cases. There was the case of the
14:42
Chinese spy, and again, that's how we suddenly rumble to what
14:45
Andrew may have been doing is sort of nefarious parties and
14:47
connections, but it's very hard to actually catch him on his own
14:52
terms because of so much documentation not being
14:56
available to the public because of this royal prerogative.
14:58
Right. But if it is 20 years, yeah,
15:00
then we should be looking at the stuff now because he was active
15:02
as a trade envoy in in 20. 2 thousand 2001 to 2011 I believe
15:06
very active date. So arguably, yes, some of his
15:08
papers we should have the. Papers should be available,
15:10
yeah. But as we've established, he may
15:12
no longer be a Prince, but he's still not one of us.
15:15
But and so imagine if that issue that you've just raised, you
15:18
know, becomes part of the public conversation.
15:20
Yeah. I mean this is really toxic
15:22
stuff for the royal family and you're protecting this
15:25
exclusion, which by the way we don't understand why it should
15:27
exist in the 1st place for the sake of someone we all think
15:29
should be investigated non trial.
15:31
And by the way, at some point here, I think almost the
15:34
subjects need to lead their sovereign.
15:36
I think it's very, very hard to reform yourself and the royal
15:40
family have been led by this kind of Bible.
15:43
It was Walter Badger, I think it was 1867, his English
15:47
Constitution book where he said you must not let the daylight in
15:51
upon the magic. Well, OK, we need to flip that
15:55
right over and let the daylight in as.
15:57
Pig lights more than daylight. But the sovereign isn't.
15:59
The King's not going to go. Come on, bring it on.
16:01
You know, here, all my here's all my lobbying with
16:03
politicians. We need to push this.
16:05
But at the same time, you know if this is one of those
16:08
existential issues for the future of the.
16:10
Crown, and it is. And it is then surely it's
16:14
better and it's more in their interest to kind of cut off the
16:16
cancerous limb, as it were, that is Andrew, and say you're on
16:20
your own mate. You know, this is what you did
16:22
and we had nothing to do with it.
16:23
Even if people start saying, well, we should look at their
16:26
tax affairs and what about this and what about the exemptions
16:28
there? What do you think, China?
16:30
Well, I think that's the process we're seeing now, which I
16:32
referred to as early on. It's the question the King is
16:35
distancing himself from Mountbatten Windsor in order to
16:39
make it possible. And you see this in relation to
16:41
corporate crime as well, that there's an effort to try and
16:43
focus in on one individual who the company claims was to blame.
16:47
And so they're going to make it possible to isolate Andrew.
16:50
Does that work? Well, that is the, that is what
16:54
you're getting the house on. It seems to me.
16:56
And I personally think that the if whatever happens to
17:00
Mountbatten Windsor, that the king will feel that he's, he's
17:05
doing enough at the moment to preserve the his reputation and
17:07
that of the monarchy, even though it's been damaged.
17:09
I think that that enough is being done at the moment, but we
17:13
don't know What more may come out about what interactions have
17:16
been between the two of them. We don't know.
17:18
It's the danger. Sorry, Go.
17:19
On no, it's just so you have on the one hand, access to Andrew's
17:22
files, which you've established as a as a sort of separate or an
17:26
anomalous case, but you also have the question for all
17:28
finances. And if we take, for example,
17:30
some of these mainstream television shows as as a
17:32
barometer for public opinion. One of the other debates I was
17:35
asked to contribute to was, you know, should Charles be paying
17:39
for Andrew's house, Marsh Farm in Sandringham.
17:42
Now that then means Andrew's story is bleeding into royal
17:45
finances, which is another massive no go area for the royal
17:48
family. I mean, Williams Worth and his
17:51
father as the Dutchie of Cornwall.
17:53
He he doesn't publish his tax returns.
17:55
He's the now the new head of the Dutchie of Cornwall, the Duke of
17:58
Cornwall. We don't see them.
18:00
Charles actually used to at least publish his tax returns
18:02
from the the Dutchie of Cornwall.
18:03
And and there is there really is no transparency and they operate
18:06
under entirely separate, no inheritance tax for the
18:09
sovereign to the heir apparent. They don't pay capital, capital
18:12
or or corporation tax on their Dutchie profits.
18:15
Which means that probably the late Queen's pay off to Andrew
18:18
was tax exempt. Which means probably we did, as
18:21
a taxpayer, pay for. It so at some stage we can
18:23
expect maybe even someone in the royal household, I, the brother,
18:26
the king to say we we are going to tell the public where this
18:30
money is from and and when it was paid and to whom it was
18:34
paid. I mean, I think without that the
18:36
question marks will always be there.
18:37
They linger the. Problem is the great winsome
18:41
story for the royal family over the last 50 years and they've
18:44
had their problems has been the majestic popularity of the late
18:48
queen and you go to. That fainted to the rear mirror,
18:52
doesn't it? Eventually.
18:54
I don't know. I think I think we need to be
18:56
able to hold up certain personalities from our recent
19:00
past and believe in them. And if you overturn that sum of
19:03
money and find out who was behind it and why it was paid
19:06
and when it was paid, do you all remember this was paid in her
19:08
final year. It was her Platinum Jubilee
19:10
year. They needed the Andrew problem
19:13
to go away. Another reason we know is a lot
19:15
of money just make the problem go away because we've got a big
19:19
Platinum Jubilee to celebrate and then we didn't.
19:20
Do but pay 10 to £12 million to someone if you haven't done
19:24
something with and that's what the public will.
19:26
Ask or. Or ask a lot of money to pay for
19:29
nothing. Except what they could argue the
19:32
royal family. And it's one of the reasons.
19:34
And the other thing that I was told off record was that when
19:37
Keir Starmer had said he should testify, was that, well, I
19:39
really don't want him to testify because we know he's loose from
19:41
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
19:45
committee. The same could be said for not
19:47
wanting him to go and give evidence in this civil case that
19:50
was bought against him in 2022. Andrew is a liability.
19:54
We didn't need the 29 interview to prove that, but it sure did
19:57
prove it. OK, it's still a lot of money,
19:59
Jeremy, if he so, if he were to testify before Congress, which
20:03
is what, you know, the Democrats certainly are calling for, even
20:06
if you're Republicans, I'm not sure exactly where the king
20:08
stands on this, but I think he'd find it difficult to oppose that
20:11
as well. How would that work and what
20:14
does it actually mean legally for him?
20:16
Well, I think legally it means that he's in broadly the same
20:21
position he was when he was being interviewed by Emily
20:24
Maitlis. That is to say, he, he, he, he,
20:27
he will be asked questions about what he knew, what his underoath
20:30
was. Yes, absolutely.
20:31
He. Wasn't Underoath with Emily
20:32
Maitlis, no. No, no, no.
20:34
But it's going to be the similar situation.
20:36
And so he is going to be asked what he knew, what his
20:40
involvement was very clearly and those questions may incriminate
20:46
him or? Or that testimony before
20:49
Congress, whether it's impersonal or on a video link,
20:51
could lead to an actual indictment.
20:54
Yeah, it could, which which is why I think he that for me
20:57
personally, I don't think that's going to happen because well, I
21:00
just don't think there is anything for him to be gained in
21:04
cooperating with it essentially and not cooperating is not going
21:08
to make any difference to his current level of reputation.
21:10
Because because if he's, because if he does cooperate, there's
21:14
the risk him being a loose cannon that yes, you know, he
21:16
might incriminate himself and end up in a, in a court of law
21:18
in the United States. If you lie underoath in the
21:20
United States, you can end up where Jolene Maxwell.
21:22
Is, of course, yeah, yes. Exactly so you but I mean his so
21:25
you're saying his reputation is already so rock bottom he might
21:28
as well just, you know, soldier this one through and and not
21:30
bother turning up. Yes, although the pressure from
21:32
the king might become bigger and bigger.
21:35
If you believe the King is placing pressure on Andrew to
21:38
give evidence at a congressional committee.
21:40
If you cause you've assumed that.
21:41
I don't, no, I don't assume anything.
21:42
I'm just OK, it's possible it's but you don't think.
21:45
He is. Let's just know.
21:46
I'm absolutely sure he isn't because he knows what would
21:48
happen. But.
21:48
He knows what's too dangerous way.
21:50
Too dangerous? Absolutely that.
21:53
So what do their family? They're all in there, but
21:54
they're putting a wall around it at the same time.
21:56
Several things. This is the wonderful thing
21:57
about the royal family which are, and I quote David Dimbleby
22:00
from his documentary The End of last year.
22:02
They're as rich as plutocrats. Actually, if you're Dutchie of
22:05
Lancaster, is making profits untaxed really of over £20
22:09
million a year? Are they untaxed?
22:11
Yeah, they're effectively they don't pay capital gains or
22:13
corporation tax Dutchess so and and inheritance.
22:16
All the stuff he got from the Queen was funnelled through
22:18
Charles because from sovereign to air it doesn't you don't, you
22:21
don't pay tax. So actually therefore is 10
22:24
million when one year you can probably shoulder that.
22:27
The the other thing is the fascinating thing here is he's
22:31
the defender of the faith. He wants to be the defender of
22:33
more than one faith. Actually, Charles and I believe
22:35
on, on some level he is a compassionate man.
22:38
And I think this is so egregious for them as a private family
22:42
because actually, and here I got really trolled actually, because
22:45
I came out saying on a on a Sunday morning program where I
22:47
felt it was fit to talk about the idea of mercy and
22:50
redemption, that actually, if I'm a private family member,
22:53
let's hypothesize, you're my brother and you've been accused
22:56
of equivalent things. I would hope, Matt, that I
22:59
wouldn't cut you off. I might be furious with you.
23:03
I might be pushing you towards a congressional course and berate
23:06
you every time I see you. But I would hope that I wouldn't
23:08
cut you off never to be seen again standing next to you, not
23:12
allowing you at a public funeral or at a Christmas lunch.
23:14
But that's really what we're asking of the private family,
23:19
the Windsors, to do with Andrew. And one of the reasons we're
23:22
asking them to do that, I think is because he hasn't been
23:25
convicted in a public court. And so because he's gone away.
23:28
Social. Conviction, Yes, which is almost
23:30
more dangerous. Which is also kind of weird,
23:32
right? So he's not gonna be convicted
23:33
in court. We don't want any of that to
23:35
come, you know, out or to be too.
23:37
Scary for the. Institution Sorry for the
23:38
institution, but we're gonna never, ever see him again at a
23:41
Christmas lunch. Which is morally repugnant
23:44
because it was Winston Churchill, you know, said the
23:46
way in which you, you treat your criminals is a is a barometer
23:48
for for judging civilisation. You know, are we gonna
23:52
effectively, if you extrapolate the narrative and say, well,
23:54
Andrew really should be in prison?
23:55
OK, we've got no proof for that at the moment.
23:57
But what you're suggesting is then somebody who's convicted of
24:00
an equivalent crime, you know, isn't worth a prison visit.
24:03
Well, then you're in the sort of terrain of wanting to
24:05
reintroduce the death penalty. It's properly dark, actually,
24:08
where this narrative's going because of the brain mob, right?
24:11
Because that's where we're at at the moment.
24:12
The public's deciding. And we'll, we'll, we'll ask the,
24:15
the story about monarchy right to the end of the podcast.
24:17
But the, the role of the Met Police and Andrew's protection
24:21
officers who would have been, you know, around him while some
24:23
of this stuff allegedly, supposedly possibly took place.
24:27
What did they have to answer for?
24:28
What should what should they do now?
24:30
I'm not sure that I mean the risk of being proved
24:33
dramatically wrong. I, I'm not sure that's a huge
24:36
problem because I, I very much doubt that they would have been
24:40
Privy to or would have known about any significant systematic
24:45
or or serious offending. I mean, I just don't see that as
24:48
very likely. But it's worth asking the
24:50
question isn't. It Oh, of course, yeah.
24:52
But I, I think it, it, it raises some difficult questions because
24:55
all protection officers acting for everyone under their
24:58
protection will see things that they would rather not have seen,
25:01
that will see things that they in some circumstances might
25:04
disclose. Testify about them or do do they
25:06
sign an NDA with the royal family that says that they
25:09
never? Well, they obviously they're
25:10
going to be under confidentiality agreements.
25:12
Yeah. Confidentiality agreements
25:13
shouldn't mean that you are under obligation not to report a
25:17
serious crime. I think clearly that Trump's any
25:19
confidentiality. But I just don't think that
25:22
whatever their suspicions might have been, there would have been
25:24
enough for them to say we should have gone to the police about X
25:28
or Yi. Just don't see that as.
25:29
Which takes us back to the question at the beginning where
25:32
you said what's the most likely to be convicted for?
25:34
And you said you thought it was sexual misconduct.
25:36
And I would go back and say no. I think every time it's about
25:38
abuse of a public office because it's so difficult to prove,
25:42
which is why the case of abuse against women but remains this
25:45
elephant in the room that's never properly dealt with
25:47
because how do you prove something's happened between two
25:51
individuals? Well, if I, if I may, Ted, I
25:53
think you've got to be careful here because testimonial
25:56
evidence is evidence. And so if a woman says I was
26:00
raped or I was abused by someone, that is evidence that
26:03
it happened, and the mere fact that the other person denies it
26:06
doesn't undermine that as evidence.
26:07
OK, so can you then explain how Virginia Du Frey today is dead
26:11
and and apparently no justice was done and instead a load of
26:14
money across the Atlantic that doesn't feel like her testimony
26:18
stood for anything and no wonder she felt crazy.
26:21
Well, absolutely correct. I mean, and it's in a tragic and
26:24
appalling situation, but there are other women who may well be
26:28
willing to stand up and give testimony and they need to be
26:31
given support and to to find their feet and to do that.
26:35
And if they do, then I think what we need to do is give
26:38
credibility to their evidence. And how much credibility are you
26:42
gonna give to Andrews evidence compared to one of those women?
26:44
And to bring us this background to a broader question for
26:47
monarchy. That is one of the, I think the
26:49
the deepest problems. We had a photograph, you know,
26:53
we he. Platformed, I mean, Andrew
26:56
denies any wrongdoing. He was, you know, so there's a,
26:58
there's. A photograph with his arm around
27:00
this girl, you know, there's and, and he said that doesn't
27:02
exist. That's just, you're imagining
27:04
that it's not a real photograph. And we platformed him.
27:06
We allowed him to do that. And because he had the heft of
27:09
the establishment and his family behind him at that time until
27:11
2019, fully behind Andrew, you know, he got away with basically
27:17
denying what you said, which is a woman's testimony as evidence
27:20
as well as a photograph. And that's why the royal family
27:22
is so implicated. Which takes me back to the
27:24
original statement of profound concern.
27:26
We need an apology. Is he getting legal advice at
27:30
the moment and who? Who's giving him legal advice?
27:33
He must be getting. He's paying.
27:34
For painful. Well, he, I would imagine, I
27:39
would imagine he must be getting legal advice.
27:41
I don't know who it's from, but it would be extraordinary if he
27:44
wasn't. So yes, I would think that that
27:46
must be the case, yes. OK, so let's end on the broad
27:49
question then. You know, and we've said this so
27:51
many times before when there've been moments of, you know,
27:53
crisis for the royal family, but is this the biggest 1 compared
27:57
to all the other ones we've had in the last 40 years or so?
28:00
I think why this is enormous is because the Sword of Damocles
28:05
has hung over Andrew's head and therefore implicating his whole
28:07
family for so long. Now.
28:09
It's like this seeping saw. It's like the dripping roast and
28:14
actually it's hugely generational and that's where
28:17
the royal family have a real problem.
28:20
We see with the whole Harry and Meghan Ferrari, there was about
28:24
25% of young people not just being ambivalent but actively
28:30
being anti monarchy. They lent in briefly thinking it
28:33
was going to change and then they got burned and now they're
28:35
actively anti. And we've never had that before.
28:37
A hard kernel of anti monarchy sentiment that's growing.
28:43
And the problem is you can have apathy when you're young because
28:45
young people don't really go in for big traditional symbols that
28:48
the state makes you celebrate. But if that anti sentiment is
28:53
then carried forward, where does the support come from when they
28:57
grow up? And today I heard, I mean,
28:59
obviously it came from the Republic campaign who are
29:01
heavily agenda saying that today for the first time, support for
29:05
monarchy is below 50%. It is around about 50% at the
29:09
moment. This has been a unprecedented
29:11
drop. The first polling was around 86%
29:15
in the 1980s and it's now down to 50.
29:18
They're skating on increasingly thin ice.
29:20
But the institution. You know, even ancient ones like
29:23
the monarchy have the ability to reform themselves, to reinvent
29:26
themselves. Hugely.
29:27
They're tied into the. Do you think that would work,
29:29
Jeremy, if they if they use this opportunity of crisis, yes, to
29:32
say let's open up the tax books. You know, let's let's do this.
29:35
I mean, whatever the the 50 things that McKinsey would
29:38
advise them to do. To stay alive, let the daylight
29:40
in, yeah. I don't see that happening.
29:42
I, I think the strategy of isolating Andrew and treating
29:46
him as persona non grata, as we say, is the royal family's hope
29:51
to survive damaged, yes, for a period of time, but to survive
29:56
this particular controversy. I I think.
29:58
And they, and that enables them also to resist these other
30:01
demands on the grounds that those are quite separate.
30:03
And, you know, I mean, they can look at them on their merits,
30:07
but essentially they're a different thing.
30:10
So wouldn't it be ironic if Keir Starmer was failed by this and
30:14
and the monarchy just kind of sailed on?
30:16
Yeah, I wish I could be in on their weekly audiences at the
30:19
moment, actually, because there is such a clear disparity the
30:24
way in which Keir Starmer's, if you like, become the whipping
30:26
boy for the Epstein scandal when it's been, I think, a far
30:31
longer, deeper problem for the royal family.
30:33
And I also think the idea of just singling out Andrew in the
30:36
royal family, taking no responsibility for him is a
30:39
particularly cruel one, and one that means they are not taking
30:43
any accountable. So the Labour Party, the Prime
30:45
Minister takes accountability, but somehow the royal family now
30:48
it's just one rotten apple. It doesn't work like that.
30:51
The level of privilege Andrew's exhibited is something that that
30:55
that's institutionalised that level of privilege.
30:58
Jeremy, you seem to be saying it's it's cruel but necessary.
31:00
That would basically be in my judgement, yes.
31:03
Final question then short answer.
31:05
Is the monarchy finished? The monarchy is not finished
31:08
because we are a constitutional monarchy.
31:10
They are baked into all areas of our state and they have huge
31:16
support not only but particularly from the 4th
31:19
estate. The press hand in glove 1 needs
31:21
the other. So in the end, they'll keep
31:23
moving forward. Yep, Charles and Camilla and
31:26
William collectively will save the monarchy.
31:28
Yes. For the time being, but but the
31:31
the bigger problem is will the I think the bigger question here
31:34
is the existential 1. The monarchy will survive, but
31:37
will it keep working for us as a nation?
31:40
Will it be the glue, the social and national glue that it once
31:44
was, for example, in the 1980s, which is a different question, a
31:48
very different question. But when an institution that's
31:50
based on popularity is no longer working for the nation, what
31:54
then? Well, then it might be finished.
31:57
But then rooting it out will take some time.
31:59
Save the King at the end of this podcast.
32:01
I'm a monarchist. I'm just very disappointed.
32:03
I'm one of those floating voters.
32:04
Appointed. Monarchy, but I don't get a
32:06
vote. Jeremy Horde, Tessa Dunham,
32:09
thank you very much indeed. That's it from the forecast.
32:12
Hope you enjoyed it. See you soon.