“Just The BEGINNING” Andrew ‘Compromised by Russian Intelligence’ - Should King Charles Step Down?
The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, is an historic bombshell that raises uncomfortable questions about the monarchy and its separation from politics. Andrew can only be accused of misconduct in public office because for 10 years he was an official trade envoy, during which time he’s alleged to have leaked state secrets to Jeffrey Epstein. But should he ever have been in that position in the first place? And, as we recorded this show, the news broke that Lord Peter Mandelson has now also been arrested on suspicion of the same offense, showing the UK is at least holding people to account. Meanwhile, In the United States, where nobody is being prosecuted over the Epstein Files, there is a shocking lack of trust in the judicial system. Joining Piers Morgan to discuss the scandal - and what it means for King Charles - is author of ‘Entitled: Rise and Fall of the House of York’ Andrew Lownie, CEO of Republic Graham Smith, Andrew’s confidante Lady Victoria Hervey, royal commentator Katie Nicholl and History Uncensored host Bianca Nobilo. Piers also speaks with South Carolina Republican Rep Nancy Mace about the American response to the Epstein scandal plus Jeffrey Epstein’s brother Mark, who tells us why he’s more convinced than ever that the sex criminal didn’t take his own life. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Cardiff: Get fast business funding without bank delays—apply in minutes with Cardiff and access up to $500,000 in same‑day funding at https://Cardiff.co/PIERS Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Constitutional Crisis and Scandal00:11:36
I've got quite a lot of material from intelligence officials talking about his involvement and how he'd been compromised by Russian intelligence.
How do you think he's feeling?
You know, at this point he is literally being crucified.
It has become like a blood sport.
No one's actually thinking about, okay, what is his mental health?
Do you have any way, the United States, to compel Andrew to testify to Congress?
I really don't care, to be honest with you.
But you care about the victims, I presume, of your brother.
These are the questions I don't get into.
Have a good day.
The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is an historic bombshell.
As the instantly iconic front page is laid bare, you have to go back almost 400 years to the first King Charles to find anything else quite like it.
And it's raising some uncomfortably existential questions about our way of life.
The whole reason the monarchy works as a system of government is that it's supposed to be above the political fray.
The monarch answers to nothing and no one but the people and the idea of the nation state.
We don't put the royals through parliamentary inquiries and cross-examinations because the moment we do, they're not royals anymore in any meaningful sense and they don't have to routinely explain themselves because for the most part they don't have practical duties which demand explanation.
That's how it all somehow holds together in a classically British fudge.
The politicians do all the dirty work.
We can change them if we like.
The royals though are a constant.
They represent all things to all people and serve as a woolly but vital symbol of our culture, tradition and history.
Well Andrew is shattering the whole illusion.
He can only be accused of misconduct in public office because for 10 years he was an official government trade envoy during which time he's alleged to have leaked state secrets to his friend the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Andrew always fancied himself as a bit of a deal maker while many around him felt his hubris exceeded his intelligence.
But it's worth asking the question, should he ever have been in that position in the first place?
Should being above the frame mean that our royals are strictly ribbon-cutting mannequins who dress up for the state occasions?
If the answers are yes, it raises more questions about their relevance in the 21st century.
If the answer is no, do they have to get used to the sort of scrutiny we apply to everybody else?
Well, King Charles himself said very powerfully that the law must run its course.
The king has thus cleared the way for an historic investigation to his own brother because he surely knows how serious this could be for the entire institution.
Now even a monarch can't change his or her family.
Andrew, with all his links to Epstein, will in turn be linked to them forever.
He's no longer a duke or a prince, but he needs to be cast as far away from the idea of the monarchy as humanly possible.
A police investigation is a seismic start.
And perhaps the only positive for Brian Britton and this whole squalid mess is that it shows our system still works.
In the United States, where no one's being prosecuted yet over the Epstein files, there's a shocking lack of trust in the whole judicial system.
Everybody thinks your guys will come after my guys and my guys will go after your guys when they get their chance.
It's not what you know, but who you know.
Chaos reigns when the people don't believe that justice is possible.
At least here in the UK, we can say that nobody, even the brother of a king, is above the law.
What joining me to debate all this is Andrew Lowney, author of entitled Rise and Fall of the House of York, Graham Smith, CEO of Republic, royal commentator Katie Nicol, and the host of History Uncensored, Bianca Nobelova.
Welcome to all of you.
Andrew Lowney, let me start with you.
I've got to say, I mean, talk about good timing for a book.
You talk about the downfall of the House of York, and we have literally, in the last few weeks, been witnessing the spectacular downfall of indeed the House of York.
Is there anything in these files, notwithstanding the very detailed stuff you had in your book, which has genuinely shocked you?
Yes, I mean, I think just the shameless way that he operated, I mean, you know, the way he sent off things very, very quickly, I didn't have access to all these emails.
And so it's just the detail there.
I think also the national security elements of it.
I've become increasingly aware since the book came out about that that is actually the next scandal to emerge.
But no, it's just the detail, the fact that he was doing it to so many people and the way that, you know, people like David Stern were inserted into his entourage to sort of promote Epstein's own interests.
In terms of what happens now, what do you think should happen now?
Well, I mean, as the king says, we must let the law enforcement do its bit.
But I think there are a lot of questions.
I mean, in my book, I talked about how journalists were, when they brought these stories to the palace, stories were denied.
There was legal threats.
There was pressure.
ABC television pulled a programme for fear of losing access to the royals.
There are lots of stories of even the heads of the Foreign Office, intelligence officials going to the palace and being told just, you know, the Queen isn't interested and being sent away with a flea in their ear.
And I think what became clear to me is that Andrew didn't operate on his own.
There was a huge network of people enabling him, not just his staff, but senior officials.
I mean, the former heads of UKTI wouldn't talk to me, for example.
All the ambassadors in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, they clearly know a lot about this.
So I'd like to see a parliamentary inquiry to really get to the bottom of what went on with all the files of his time as a trade envoy revealed.
Katie Nicole, this is, it strikes me a very perilous moment for the monarchy.
And I speak as someone who's been covering them for four decades.
And, you know, I remember everything from the death of Diana to the Windsor fires.
I mean, there's been lots of things which have been huge stories.
But I can, and of course, the whole Charles and Camilla saga.
But I can never remember one where the size of the scandal, which has a long way, I think, to still play out, could in itself represent a genuine threat to the monarchy and its ability to survive.
I mean, do you fear that?
Or do you think that it will just blow through like everything else has done?
I don't actually think it's just going to blow over because I think, you know, whilst many might have thought that this would culminate with Andrew's arrest, actually, it feels like this is just the beginning.
So I don't think there's any chance that this is going to blow over.
As you say, the monarchy has weathered many crises over the decades.
But when you hear constitutional historians and experts are likening this to the abdication in terms of the constitutional crisis the monarchy is facing, yes, of course it is going to be a very, it is a worrying time for them.
You only need to take a look at some of the recent polls that have been conducted this month to show that while there is still a high number of people that want to see a monarchy in Britain, that actually amongst the young, they are totally against the idea of a hereditary unelected monarchy.
It's something that they simply don't want.
And I think that's the worrying statistic for the monarchy.
So, you know, this is a monarchy in, you know, make no mistakes about it.
It's a monarchy in crisis damage limitation mode.
And that palace machine is going to be working overtime to, I think, if anything, try and claw back some of the narrative because that's the one thing they've lost in all of this.
They have lost, they've lost the narrative here.
And that's a worrying place for them to be.
And the king, you know, to remind people, he's still fighting cancer.
You know, he's not been a well man.
This is obviously going to put huge pressure on.
This is his brother, right, that he is having to deal with here with this enormous scandal.
But also, there's the legacy of his late great mother, Queen Elizabeth II, who is coming under increasing examination for protecting allegedly her supposedly favorite son, Andrew.
And there are going to be legitimate questions about particularly the payoff, which she is reported to have sanctioned to Virginia Dufray, who was obviously one of the leading victims in this, who then very tragically took her life last year.
But, you know, she got a reported payout of at least 12 million pounds, it was said, authorized by the late Queen.
There were reports in the Sun a couple of weeks ago that even King Charles may have put some money in.
That was denied, although not officially.
But it seems to me the paper trail on that payoff and who knew what, where, and when in relation to what Andrew may have been telling the family and so on, that could become really important because if it looks like the family knew more than they're letting on and conspired to pay this woman off to shut this up, then that's very damaging.
It is very damaging.
And I think this is the whole Pandora's box.
This is what it's opening up.
Of course, late Queen Elizabeth is not here anymore to answer those questions.
We don't know how much she knew or not.
I remember being told by Lady Elizabeth Anson, her cousin, when I spoke to her, that she had asked Andrew about Dufray and about what had happened and believed that Andrew was telling her the truth when he said he was completely innocent.
But I think the problem is, you know, if the king had something to do with that payout, and as you say, those reports have not been confirmed, whether he did or did not.
The big question is, how much did he know?
And, you know, if he knew either about those sexual abuse allegations or any whiff of misconduct while in public office, that's hugely damaging to King Charles and his reign.
And I think that sort of speculation, because it is only speculation at the moment, is giving rise to a new narrative that's popping up.
And I'm being asked about this constantly.
Will Charles step aside in all of this and abdicate so that William and Catherine can take over and start a new clean slate?
I'm not sure that's going to happen.
It's another subject altogether.
But in terms of this being a pinnacle moment for the monarchy, where it really needs to pivot now, really needs to do something, evolve, which is what it's always done.
This feels like a moment that is ripe for that.
Small businesses drive our economy, but securing capital is a constant struggle.
Of this 36 million small businesses in the United States, over 70% report needing additional capital at least once per year.
Big banks are burying owners in mountains of paperwork for months.
If you want competitive bank rates without all those frustrating bank delays, visit our sponsor, cardiff.co slash peers, for up to $500,000 in funding.
Cardiff's application takes less than five minutes and has no impact on your personal credit.
Approvals happen in minutes.
Banks try to lock out small businesses.
Cardiff has the key.
Big banks may not want to approve your business loans, but Cardiff does.
If you've been in business for at least a year and you're putting in $20,000 a month in revenue, applying now for up to $500,000 in the same day business funding at cardiff.co slash peers.
Again, that's cardiff.co slash peers.
Real growth, fast funding.
The Future of Royal Succession00:08:09
Well, yeah, I mean, Bianca, the interesting thing about the succession, I was told quite a long time ago by one of the senior royals that the reason the Queen, for example, would never have abdicated was that she believed, as the family do as a unit, very strongly in the natural order of succession.
And that the moment you start tampering with the natural order of succession, which is why they were so enraged as a family by what happened with Edward VIII, is that the moment you start artificially tampering with it, you lay yourself open to nature, right?
To stuff happening.
You know, as they used to say, you're only one terrorist attack, you know, from King Harry or King Andrew.
And these are reality checks for the royal family in terms of this succession.
But in terms of, I mean, I look at the succession list, and all right, you've got William and then you've got two of his kids.
But very quickly, you get to Harry, right, married to Megan.
That would be, I think, the beginning of the end of the monarchy.
And then you get to Andrew, which would definitely be the end of the monarchy, probably the second it was announced.
So it does feel precarious to me because you've had, obviously, William's wife, you know, Catherine has been very sick with cancer as well.
It just felt perilous for a while, this whole succession.
Is it perilous by historic standards?
And what can we do about these renegades still on the list?
Can we get rid of Harry and Andrew?
And to be clear, as I've always said, what Andrew is alleged to have done is infinitely worse than anything Harry did.
He's just a whining little brat.
Andrew is on an altogether different scale of scandal.
But, you know, how do we get rid of these people from the succession list?
Well, I can tackle both of these questions together in terms of how perilous is this historically?
And also, can we remove them, Harry and Andrew?
The fact is, is it's Parliament's prerogative to do that, which was not always historically the case.
So the monarchy in Britain exists because the British Parliament allows it to exist.
That's how it works.
And Parliament has altered the statute book before to, for example, back in the 18th century, ensure that the monarch was not going to be a Catholic.
And then in 2013, they altered the succession planning again to prohibit male primogenta.
So that means that females would have just as much right to inherit the throne.
So this is Parliament's job.
And the way that they do that is a bill, which becomes an act.
And then, of course, it gets royal assent, which would technically be the king's doing, even though that is purely ceremonial for now.
So it's precarious in a way that it didn't used to be because it's not actually the monarchy's choice, ultimately, whether or not that happens.
And we've seen the Prime Minister of Australia today, Anthony Albanese, come out saying that he would support removing Andrew from the line of succession.
Clearly, as you outlined, if there were to be some unforeseen tragic circumstance where that looked more likely, the monarchy would be in utter peril.
And when you have an institution that exists solely based on public trust, it's always about net positive, net negative contribution.
And what you've all been saying paints a picture where that is getting less clear.
Yeah.
So Graham Smith, you must be feeling pretty happy right now because the whole point of Republic, the organization that you lead, is to get rid of the monarchy.
And they're pretty well digging the hole for themselves.
Yeah, I mean, Violent's saying happy.
I've got to remember, obviously, that a lot of this is on the back of pretty awful allegations.
And there are lots of victims involved here.
So I wouldn't say happy, but I think angry like a lot of people are.
But I think that obviously, for me, what this is doing is exposing a lot of the home truths about the monarchy, which I've been talking about for a long time.
And I mean, I pick up on the notion that William might be a clean slate.
I mean, he's been an adult member, senior member of the royal family for 20 years now.
I think that it strikes me as unlikely that he wasn't also briefed at some point about what Andrew knew, certainly when the payment was made in 2012.
But, you know, people would have wanted to know what was going on, what the risks were coming down the line.
And I think this is the question which I keep hearing repeated is what did you know when?
And that is being directed at both William and Charles.
And William, of course, is very tangentically caught up in the Epstein thing with his apparent association with Abdul Salayem, the former now CEO and chair of DP World and the UAE, which is a founding partner of Earthshot.
And he's coding up to these people of somewhat questionable repute in the Middle East, asking them for money, as his father has done on more than one occasion.
And I think that a lot of people are going to come back to the monarchy for the first time and look at it more critically and start noticing some of these stories that some of us have noticed in the past, like the 3 million euros in cash, like the allegations of cash for honours, and start probing a lot more.
What's also interesting is that a lot of royalists have been saying what we need is more openness and transparency.
And I would be very happy if that happened because they cannot really survive openness and transparency.
They've got so many skeletons in the club and in the closet.
That would be the end of it.
So they are very, very, in very, very perilous terms.
Whichever way the Andrew case goes in court, whether it goes to court, whether it doesn't, that's going to cause them damage, whichever way it goes.
Whether they stay silent, whether they open up, it's going to be incredibly damaging for them.
Yeah, I mean, Andrew, Louney, it obviously is incredibly damaging, and we may not even be at the half of it.
I mean, more and more stuff is coming out from these Epstein files.
We know there are 3 million more files that have not even been released by the Attorney General Pam Bondi in America.
But also, people are going to start appearing in front of the United States Congress in front of their committees.
People are going to start, as they are being with Andrew, and I suspect Lord Mandelson will be next.
They'll be part of police investigations where all of their stuff gets taken away.
All their computers, their phones, and so on get checked.
And, you know, as soon as I heard about Andrew's arrest, my first thought was, wow, what's going to be on his stuff?
Right?
What has he talked about to other members of the royal family?
What are the royal secrets could come out purely from the fact there's now a police investigation with all the discovery that goes on there?
You know, once you press that button of enforced transparency, who the hell knows where this goes?
Well, I think that's the fear of the royal family, absolutely.
And I mean, I've had scores of people come to me since the book was published in August with, I mean, very close to Andrew and other members of the royal family with stories.
But you're absolutely right.
I mean, it just needs a slightly more emboldened press, which there is now, to start investigating some of the clues in the Epstein files.
And I think we may get more victims coming forward.
And as the police conduct their investigations, not just into the misconduct in public life, but also into sex trafficking.
And I would argue also this is a national security question.
I think there are signs that he gave away secrets to powers, foreign powers.
The royal family was penetrated by the Russian Chinese intelligence services because there was no oversight or an accountability.
So you're absolutely right.
This is going to go for years and open up a huge can of worms.
And it's going to get closer and closer to the king.
Yeah.
Bianca, on the political part of this, apparently Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker of the House of Commons, is expected to say that politicians can discuss Andrew because he's been stripped of his royal titles, meaning the usual conventions, which kind of act as a protective shield against the royals being debated in the House of Commons, don't apply to him.
Is that right?
Yes, that's correct.
And that will be an explosive session because there'll be pressure across all parties to have the sentiment of the victims and the concerns of the public expressed.
Can the Monarchy Be Normal00:03:57
And what you've got there and why this is so unusual is because politics and the monarchy are supposed to be separate because that is the point of the monarchy.
It's supposed to be above politics.
It's continuity for those who support the monarchy.
It's a cultural boon to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
So the minute that you start tangling the two, you're getting into very dodgy territory.
And when you think about how far the monarchy's fallen, I think that's what this is going to exhibit.
You know, when we're talking 900 years ago, kings were supposedly in place because of divine right.
They were thought to be able to cure diseases like scropula of the peasantry.
Then you have this absolutism that descends and disintegrates in the civil war.
And you have some scandalous monarchs in the Georgian era.
And then it's really Victoria and Albert that create this idea of an untouchable, beyond reproach family that you begin to really have high expectations of behavior from.
And we are seeing a massive fall from grace.
Yes, there have been scandals in the past, but so much of that mystique that protected them has gone.
And as some of your guests were saying before, when we look at the successful monarchies in Norway and Sweden, you often see the royals like riding their bikes.
They're a lot more ordinary than the royal family in Britain.
And it doesn't appear that the royal family in Britain can sustain that level of exposure and transparency, as well as public trust and public support currently.
Well, that's interesting, isn't it, Katie?
Because, you know, in the last few years alone, we've had some enormous public royal events because of the deaths of Prince Philip, because of the deaths of obviously Queen Elizabeth, the coronation of King Charles going back a few more years, the marriage of William and Kate and so on.
These have all been enormous globally broadcast events that have shown the royals and the pomp and pageantry, both in good times and bad, at their very finest, you know, with the finest military parades and so on.
The problem is, as Bianca said, the only places really where you still have monarchies which still exist in Europe, for example, is where they're pretty much behaving like the commoners.
And I just don't think that would work in our country.
You know, it's just you're either all in on the pomp and the pageantry and the spectacle and the glamour and so on, or you're kind of not.
You know, and I think the problem, I think you touched on this earlier, I think of my kids who are like from 32 down to 14, they don't talk about the royals really ever.
You know, when I was young, my mother camped on the Mau for Diana and Charles's wedding and for Sarah and Andrew's wedding.
Actually camped overnight on the Mau.
We had street parties in my local village.
You know, the whole village shut down for this kind of thing.
It's hard to see.
I mean, I could imagine it for the coronation of William, but other than that, it's hard to see what kind of events would galvanize this country in the way they used to, you know, maybe 40 years ago.
Look, I think you're right.
Right.
And when I'm, as you're talking back to some of those big events, Piers, which you and I have both covered, jubilees, royal weddings, the funeral, the crowds do turn out.
I think those polls are so interesting because they clearly illustrate the greatest disparity.
The biggest percentage of people that I think are verging on apathy are the younger generation.
Now, to the point about can the royals be normal?
I mean, they're never going to be normal.
And yet, we've seen, you know, William in a pub having a pipe, driving around Windsor Castle on his electric scooter, communicating with his future subjects, essentially, through those social media channels, which, you know, they are brilliant at now.
So I think we are seeing an evolution.
I think it's unfair to say we're not seeing them modernizing, but this is an institution that generally operates at a pretty glacial pace.
A Huge Distraction for Royals00:14:46
I think William and Catherine are key to that because I think they recognize that.
They see that need to sort of accelerate things a little faster.
And I think they will do that.
We always knew that Charles's reign was going to be a relatively short one, a transitional one, as it were.
But this does put a huge question mark over the future and how that's going and how that's going to look.
Of course it does.
But I do think they're capable of modernizing.
And I think, as I said to you earlier, I think this moment is going to force that.
We're going to be joined by the Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who was with me last week and has been calling for Andrew to testify in the US.
And I'd be interested to hear her view about what's just happened to him, obviously.
But before we let you go, Andrew Lowney, you've referenced several times this is becoming a national security issue, this scandal.
Just put a bit more meat on the bone by what you mean by that.
Well, I mean, we had an article last week by Tim Chipman, the political leader of the spectator, talking about this being a national security worry for officials in Whitehall.
I've got quite a lot of material from intelligence officials with reports on Andrew corruption dated, in fact, January this year, talking about his involvement and how he'd been compromised by Russian intelligence.
And we've always had these Chinese spies around him, the alleged spy, Ten Bo Yang.
So I think this is the way the thing is going.
I'm getting more and more information about military secrets and other secrets which seem to have been divulged as well as the commercial ones.
Well, Andrew Landy, you've got to leave us now.
Thank you very much indeed.
I do appreciate you joining us.
And the book is obviously continuing to dominate a lot of the media coverage.
So congratulations again on your timing with that.
And it's an extremely well-written analysis of the downfall of the York.
So I appreciate you finding time for us.
Thank you.
I want to bring back in Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace now, who we spoke last week.
Nancy Mace, when you heard that Andrew had been arrested, you posted on your ex-account months ago, I called for the arrest of Prince Andrew.
Today, on his 66th birthday, our wishes were granted.
No one is above the law.
You then said the UK had the courage to make arrests.
Why hasn't anyone in America been arrested?
And that's a really, really, really good question, because there are many more high-profile American names in the Epstein files than there are British names.
And yet we're seeing here already police arresting Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
We're seeing them probably arresting imminently.
I would think Lord Mandelson, they're certainly investigating him for similar issues to do with trading secrets, business secrets to Epstein.
Why is this not happening in the United States?
Because the United States is continuing its 20-year-long cover-up.
And for me, I'm just dismayed that other countries are doing more than ours.
We are the leader of the free world.
And why we would brush this sort of thing under the rug, whether we're talking about sex trafficking, Ponzi schemes, insider trading, intel assets, sharing information that's classified with our enemies or allies, you know, against the law, et cetera.
In the case of former Prince Andrew there, why we are allowing this to happen and not being forthcoming is deeply problematic for the United States.
And we need to be doing more, much, much more.
Do you have any way, the United States, to compel Andrew Mountbatten Windsor to testify to Congress, even if it's done remotely from the UK?
Not without some sort of a lateral agreement between our two countries.
We would not be able to compel him.
I know there was some discussion of that years ago within the DOJ and the FBI, but there was no agreement.
And or former Prince Andrew refused to come in and testify to our agencies.
I believe he'd have a lot of information to provide to U.S. investigative agencies, but that's, we don't know if they're continuing the investigation.
I think they're done.
I don't think they're going to do any more, which is why I'm pressing hard to have all these files released, because I think there's a lot more to it than what we've seen so far.
If he said, right, look, I will testify, but I want full immunity from prosecution.
Is that something you would consider?
I think we'd have to understand what he would be talking about or willing to come to the table to talk about.
Obviously, the devil is always going to be in the details.
And one of the issues I have right now with the Epstein files is that a lot of people were given immunity and nothing has happened.
They were given immunity and for what?
For no one to go to jail.
But this is a real opportunity for the UK to show the world about truth, about transparency, that there is not a two-tier system of justice and those that break the law will be held accountable.
So this, I see this as a massive opportunity for the UK to show the world what they're made of.
And do you feel the same way about Lord Mandelson?
Yes.
I mean, he should, obviously, he's in the files and there's questionable behavior there.
And I wouldn't be surprised, as you just said, if he gets arrested too.
We've got big visits by both King Charles and Prince William coming to the United States later this year.
What is the mood about the Royals?
Would you say?
I've spent a lot of time in America and the Royals are pretty popular.
Certainly the vast majority of tourists that come to the UK for the Royals are Americans, right?
So there's a lot of love for the Americans, not least in the President Trump himself, whose mother was a big fan of the Royal Family.
She was Scottish, of course.
But what kind of reception do you think they will get?
We've seen them on public engagements in the UK, having people start to call out stuff about the Epstein scandal and so on, which has been pretty awkward for them.
Will they get that in the United States?
Will they be well received?
What do you feel may happen?
Yeah, I think they might be, King Charles might be actually more well received here in the United States because it appears to us that the UK is doing something about the information, credible information in those files, whereas the United States is just stepping aside, brushing it under the rug.
I think we'll have a very big and warm welcome.
And I think also, too, this is an opportunity for the king.
I mean, he's watched, you know, I think probably in dismay, if I'm reading the UK press correctly, probably been embarrassed by the behavior of former Prince Andrew.
Certainly, I read in press reports he was embarrassed when I called for the arrest of former Prince Andrew.
And I was the only member of Congress to do so last September.
But this is a real opportunity for the royal family also, as you all were just saying in your segment previously, to really show them what they're made of, that they are more of the people than they can, I think, be like the people by showing what has happened and be humbled by it.
And I think this is just a big opportunity for the royal family.
The final question, Congresswoman.
Do you think there will be arrests in America?
No, I don't.
I have no confidence in our justice system.
I think it's a system of injustice.
I think the way that these victims and others get justice are seeing people, if they're not going to go to jail, be removed from boards, be publicly shamed out of civil society, lose their companies.
You're starting to see some of that.
The dominoes are falling, but they're not falling fast enough.
And that's why I'm really intent on getting all the files out there.
I don't believe there's any more investigation.
There are not going to be any more indictments because I believe Epstein was an Intel asset, maybe of one or multiple nations.
And that's why our country protected him and the information and videos and audio that he had on other world leaders.
But until people go to jail, people want justice.
And that's the only way we're going to get it right now.
It's a really shocking state of affairs, but you're right.
You know, if the UK, the UK has begun to show the world the right way to handle this, and I think we should follow through.
And actually, enforcing Andrew to testify to Congress would be a very good start.
And Lord Mandelson.
Congresswoman Mace, thank you very much indeed for joining me again.
Well, joining the panel now is Andrew's confidante, Lady Victoria Harvey.
We spoke last week, Victoria.
I just wanted to... get an insight from you about what you have gleaned, maybe the mental state of Andrew, how he is in himself.
He's obviously lost pretty much everything.
His wife has gone into hiding.
His kids haven't been seen.
You know, it's the haunting picture of him coming out of the police station has gone around the world as one of the most shameful images of a royal in history.
What are you hearing about him and how he is?
First of all, I think that the photographer, you know, taking a photo like that, I think that is shameful, to be honest.
You know, someone in Andrew's position having just left, or you're just leaving the police station and, you know, you're obviously hiding from the photographers.
Of course, you're going to have a red eye and it's going to look bad.
I mean, you know, for people to be gleefully sort of enjoying this purge, I think it's sick.
I think it's demented.
I think it's deranged.
And at what point is this going to stop?
Is this going to be like, you know, that girl from Love Island that they went after and she finally killed herself?
Do you know what I mean?
Like, how far is this going to go?
Well, I do, but I also think my response would be as a former tabloid newspaper editor is that the royal family, well, hang on, let me finish my point.
Is that the royal family caught the media when it suits them?
The whole deal with the media is that the media promotes the royal family and the monarchy in a way that I think sustains their future.
Without media coverage, the monarchy would simply disappear and be irrelevant and die and die.
So my point being, well, hang on.
You can't turn the tap on and off when it suits you.
And frankly, I can't think of a more legitimate reason why the media would photograph a member of the royal family than that a member of the royal family is leaving a police station after being arrested for what could turn out to be treasonous acts of passing business secrets that they gleaned as a trade envoy for the UK government to a convicted paedophile.
So, you know, I won't have any truck with those who say the picture shouldn't have been taken.
It might be a haunting image, but the idea no one would take it or publish it is ridiculous.
I just think, you know, the fact that Tobin Andrea, who was at the Daily Mail, who joined the palace, who is head of comms at the palace, I just feel like that is a huge conflict of interest, to be honest, that there's obviously information.
Well, there's information being fed.
The photographers that were there at 7.30 a.m.
Well, hang on.
It was a setup by the Daily Mail.
Victoria, Victoria, you're very good at saying stuff, but you have to then let me actually counter it with reality.
I know Tobin Andre.
He was at the Daily Mail as a senior executive for many years.
He's gone to run comms for the king.
Right, for the king.
And there is absolutely zero suggestion that he had anything to do with any of this.
In fact, the photographer, the photographer who's from Reuters, has explained in painstaking detail how he came to be where he was.
And it was pure chance that he, I mean, put it this way.
If Tobin Andre from the palace wanted the photographers to get the picture, there'd have been a lot more than one of them there by chance.
But anyway, like getting back to, you know, because we've now drifted off like from the original questions and you were saying to me, well, how do you think he's actually feeling?
I mean, how do you think he's feeling?
You know, at this point, he is literally being crucified.
And it has become like a blood sport.
You know, I said that on my Twitter the other day that it feels like a blood sport and he is being hounded.
And like, when is this actually going to stop?
You know, no one's actually thinking about, okay, what is his mental health?
Right now, the facts are Virginia Dufrey.
So this is completely separate.
Obviously, this has nothing to do with the sex scandal that he was accused of, that nothing was ever proven.
This is, you know, more serious.
Peter Mandelson's role, though, was way higher.
Andrew was actually not even an official diplomat.
You know, it was more a sort of, it was a role that he took on, but it wasn't official.
I think it's a huge distraction.
Well, it wasn't.
No, I can't.
Wait, one second.
Let me talk.
This was a huge distraction from Stalma and Peter Mandelson.
Victoria.
Victoria, you can't say these things without correction.
He was an official government trade envoy.
He may not have been a member of the British cabinet like Mandelson, but he was an official trade envoy.
And I think that's the key part.
Not in a hugely official capacity like Mandelson.
Well, you're right.
He's completely different.
Well, you're right.
But don't you think this is a huge distraction from Stalma right now?
No, I don't.
I think it's got nothing to do with it.
But Bianca, from that point, I mean, to me, Mandelson and Andrew, I don't know why we call one by his surname, one by the other.
We just call him Prince Andrew because the Mount Batten thing is way too long.
Well, he's not Prince Andrew anymore.
So let's call him Mount Batten Windsor and he won't always be Prince Andrew because he's no longer Prince Andrew.
Piers Morgan, what's your real name?
You're not called Piers Morgan, are you?
So, you know.
Well, if you want to know, well, if you want to know my full surname, it's Pew Morgan, double-barreled.
I dropped the Pew when I became a journalist because I got more bylines without it.
Right.
But I still have that on my passport.
I still have that on my passport.
But I think it's just easier to call him Prince Andrew, you know.
But he's not, no, he literally has had the word prince removed from his title.
With that name, like it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
He's no longer a prince.
You may want him to be.
He's not a prince.
Let me bring in Bianca here.
I mean, look, I'm not living in Cloud Cooker there, right?
Well, yes, Victoria, I'll come back to you, but you're part of a four-person panel.
So if you could show some respect to your fellow panel members, just to remind you, if you do say outlandish things, I'm going to challenge them.
So it's up to you.
Bianca, in terms of Andrew's titles, he has no titles, right?
Accountability and Proper Behavior00:11:52
They're all gone.
Yeah, and I'll keep it brief, but on the point of the trade envoy and whether or not that's an official position, yes, it was.
He was the UK representative for trade and investment for about a decade, often referred to as a trade envoy.
And one of the sticking points with this is that given what Andrew Lowny said about national security and potential risk there, you have typically diplomats or people who work in these roles have gone through intent vetting.
They've also designed their professional careers so that this is what they're doing and this is what they're prepared for.
And then you have members of the royal family who may not know exactly how to behave, may know how to behave and decide not to behave that way, that are afforded somewhat similar levels of access to influential and important people.
So you can see how this throws up another question in an egalitarian modern society about, well, who should have access to these figures if they're working on behalf of us, the people?
Yeah.
Graham Smith, I mean, you know, if you ask me which of the stories in the last few days is almost guaranteed to speed up a whiff of Republicanism, it would be the sun story that royal servants at his reduced but still luxurious home on Misandrium Estate have been told to keep addressing Andrew as sir.
I mean, why on earth would anyone call him sir?
Well, I mean, I don't know that that is necessarily going to be the key thing.
I think that there is very serious issues here, which touching on what was just said about access to confidential information, because Charles and William have complete access to every cabinet paper that goes through the cabinet office, regardless of what it is, what it might say, what information they might have.
That is written into the cabinet manual.
And it's something which caused some consternation about, I think, 10 years ago when we revealed this in the press.
It hasn't changed.
Now, we know that royals from their fairly ham-fisted tour of the Caribbean back in 2022 are not the greatest of diplomats at the best of times.
And they're not trained.
They're not controlled or scrutinized.
So there's a whole load of information floating around.
And as I said, they've got some fairly questionable friends.
And you have to wonder whether any of this information is wittingly or unwittingly being passed along by other royals.
So this is why we need proper openness and scrutiny.
And the notion that, you know, the Congresswoman suggested this might do well for Charles.
This is going to open up a lot of questions for Charles as well and William.
And we do need to know what these secret documents are being, you know, shared or who's getting them, whether they're being shared with other people and why they're being allowed that kind of access.
You know, there simply is no justification.
They're cabinet ministers that don't get everything through that goes through the cabinet office.
Why is William being given it?
And it gives them, when we're talking about reforming the monarchy and where it goes next, that level of access gives them very early warning of what cabinet ministers might be discussing and contemplating and can see off any potential reforms they don't like before anybody else gets wind of it.
So there are much wider issues about access, about secrecy, about their influence on government ministers and going back to the point, what they knew when, because you said earlier that this might reflect well on us, that we're the one that's arrested royal and all the rest after years and years and years.
The original accusations from Virginia Jiffray go back 25 years.
We've had allegations around that very public for 15 years.
We had the payoff in 2022.
And only at the very last minute, when everything else has been taken away from Andrew, and when the Epstein files finally came out, and I reported him to the police and other people were saying something needs to be done, that finally the police turned up and took him away.
And I was as shocked as everybody that they did that.
And it's great that they've done that, but we're still waiting to see where that goes next.
And I think that that is not a great advert for justice.
It's good that they've finally taken that step, but we have to explode open this whole area of secrecy, of influence, of what information they have access to, what their dodgy friends are doing, why Charles was paid 3 million euros in cash as a donation to a charity.
Was there a quid pro quo?
There's so many questions here about the way in which all royals behave, because this is how royalty is.
It's how anybody is.
I mean, you'll remember the MP scandal, MP's expenses scandal in 2009.
You know, when people have access to money and no scrutiny, guess what?
Some people get it wrong and they start misbehaving.
And, you know, there's been a culture of pollution and secrecy and deference and fawning around the walls for so long that they have gotten this idea quite accurately that they can act without with impunity.
And so they have no proper boundaries set.
They're not, you know, they don't grow up with this kind of challenge and criticism.
They don't really understand.
You know, I think it's been said, Andrew doesn't understand that he's done anything wrong.
You know, and I can believe that because he's not being brought up in this world where he has those sorts of boundaries and expectations the rest of us have.
And Piers, if I could just there have been some people.
Sorry, yeah, Bianca.
Yeah, just a really quick point, particularly for your American viewers when it comes to justice, given what Nancy May said as well.
We shouldn't forget that nobody is above the law in the UK apart from the king.
He has sovereign immunity.
He is the person in whose name justice is done.
And from there, obviously, trickles certain expectations of judgment and behaviour.
Not that this is something people in Britain think about day to day, but it is really significant that he can't be prosecuted.
Right, it is.
Katie, some people think the king should make some kind of public address to the nation.
Worth remembering that the queen, his mother, made, I think, four in her entire seven-decade reign.
You know, when Diana died, I think she made one after the Iraq war, I think after the Windsor fire.
And there was one other, but I mean, it was the one that she made in Corvid.
During COVID, she made a very powerful and during COVID, yeah.
I think they were used incredibly sparingly.
But is this the kind of thing where he should, do you think, get on the front foot and speak to the people?
Look, I think he got on the front foot last week and issued that statement in the nick of time.
I think there's a sense that he's just about ahead of the curve, but you know, perhaps the, well, yeah, I think the titles being stripped came too late, but you know, they've learned from that and they are ahead of the curve.
I think perhaps it might be premature for the king to come out and say anything at the moment.
But I think, you know, once this police investigation is concluded, I don't see how the king can't give a bit of a non-statement, really.
Well, I think, listen, Graham, he was limited in what he could say because it is now part of a police investigation.
But I think, you know, in perhaps under Elizabeth's reign, we wouldn't have heard anything at all.
I think it was very important that we did hear for the king, but obviously limited in terms of what he can say because it is an ongoing police investigation.
But so, yes, to answer your question, Piers, I think we will hear from the King again, but I think it will be carefully timed.
And I just wanted to pick up something very quickly, Graham, that you mentioned about the royals.
I don't want to misquote you, but essentially saying that they weren't particularly good diplomats.
And I think, yes, you use Andrew as an example of that.
And it's clearly obvious that he feathered his own nest and abused it.
But I think it's also worth making the point.
And Piers, you mentioned the upcoming trip to the States.
What we do see the royals do, which politicians simply can't, is that soft power diplomacy.
And I would argue that they are very good at that.
You know, you get the king with Trump getting things over the line that no politician with all the will in the world could do.
So I don't think that's supportable by evidence.
I don't think it is.
The examples I cited were the two Caribbean tours in 2022, which was William and Kate first and then Edward and Sophie.
And they were, you know, cringingly embarrassing.
I mean, they embarrassed themselves and the country on both tours.
You know, Edward was particularly awkward and difficult when he was being asked to take back a message on reparations.
He just basically, you know, more or less admitted he wasn't really listening.
You know, it's just appalling.
And the soft power myth hasn't really borne out because, you know, two months after the state visit of Trump to the UK, he was threatening us with tariffs because we were defending Greenland.
And whilst Charles was in Canada, he was threatening Canada.
So, you know, this hasn't really borne out in any kind of substance.
But, you know, in terms of what Charles has said, he hasn't said a word.
What he's had done is his press office put up.
He said he's going to cooperate with the police and he said that the law will take its course.
So he has responded.
He couldn't say anything else.
I mean, if he had said the opposite, it would be an outcry.
You know, of course, it's not up to him.
Do you know what I think?
I think the actual, I think the rule book has to be thrown up a bit.
I think things are moving very, very fast and public opinion is moving fast too.
and the royals have to be careful here.
They don't just, you know, I remember very clearly what happened when Dinah died.
I was editing the Daily Mirror and the royal family were up at Balmoral and they were basically just keeping their heads down and trying to mourn as a family.
And they forgot, it seemed to me, that they have a dual role.
It was one of the few times I felt the Queen just missed a beat on this, which is that, yes, you're a family, but you're also public property to a large degree.
And the public were grieving across the country for the death of this beautiful young woman, Princess Diana.
And it was only after a lot of pressure from the papers.
You know, I remember the front page of the mirror was speak to us, ma'am, your people are hurting.
And the other papers did the same.
It was only after that, after four days, I think, that they even lowered the flag to half-mast on Buckingham Palace because it wasn't convention.
The Queen then came down, spoke to the nation without a tiara and so on.
You know, these things were just not what they did.
But they did them because they recognized the mood had changed.
I feel like we're entering for different reasons into an area now where they've got to think a bit differently.
When I saw the statement of Catherine, I thought it was very, a very weak, wishy-washy thing.
Doesn't it?
Isn't this the thing?
Victoria, I will come to you one moment.
Just let Graham respond.
What I think Charles and Williams should do is stand in front of cameras with journalists in the room and make a statement saying that most importantly, that the police should be absolutely investigating without fear of favour, even if the evidence leads to their own doorstep,
to make sure that there's absolute clarity on that point, that no one feels they're able to put pressure on anybody, as has been alleged in the past, to not look too closely to some of those royals and then take questions from journalists and really front it up because then we can actually see who these people are rather than doing some carefully scripted thing to camera.
I mean, I don't think it reflects well on the monarchy that the last queen only addressed the nation four times on two occasions about the monarchy, or that it reflects well that this is an occasion where they're trying to save their own skin and therefore he should address the nation.
I think there needs to be proper accountability where they stand in front of people, you know, explain that everything needs to be opened up.
Well, you know what?
Okay, on that though, I don't really agree.
I think the Queen mother had a maxim which her daughter, Queen Elizabeth shared, which was never complain, never explain, and rarely.
But that's not okay in a democratic society.
You should be explaining.
Well, actually, it was very okay in a democratic society for the last hundred years.
And in fact, I mean, the Queen was the most, she died as the most beloved public figure in the world.
So you can't see cultures.
Well, her strategy was clearly successful in maintaining the state of the monarchy.
Victims, Lies, and Hard Drives00:10:15
And she was very popular and beloved.
I mean, you know, there's no other public figure in the country that had her kind of personal approval with the possible exception of David Attenborough.
When it becomes Victoria Harvey, the most...
I'm not having for her, sir.
Well, that is a legitimate question.
And it's questions like that which make this, in my opinion, the most damaging part of this.
And I think we'll have to see where that goes.
I'll come back to Victoria in a moment.
Joining me on the phone now is Mark Epstein, who was Jeffrey Epstein's brother.
Mark Epstein, we did speak once before on Uncense, and I appreciate you joining me again.
You expressed a view then very strongly that you believed your brother didn't take his life, that he had been killed in prison.
Is that still your view?
Even more so now with more release of some documents that we've got a hold of.
And there's a group of pathologists that are actually studying the autopsy results as should have been done initially.
Because if you recall, when Jeffrey first died, the initial death certificate, because it does said pending further investigation, pending further study, which was never done.
And this group is actually studying it and they're concluding and doing a report that will come out shortly that's being peer-reviewed for a number of reasons, but it's showing that this couldn't have been a suicide as they claim.
And also, with the more documents we've been getting, things like the doctor Roman, who did the actual autopsy, she said in her deposition afterwards that she was prevented, but told not to take DNA evidence, and she was prohibited from going to the crime scene, which is highly unusual in these kinds of cases.
We also found out that the FBI lost a lot of the information on the videotapes because they switched out hard drives when they were warned not to do that.
Because when you switch out the hard drives when they did, it was going to lose a lot of the information.
But they went ahead and switched out the hard drives anyhow.
So they did lose a lot of information, video information.
And there's more and more facts that, you know, look, if this was a suicide, it would be pretty simple.
There'd be no need for all these shenanigans and all this documentation.
Also, I had requested a full report from the medical examiner's office because initially I only got the partial.
And then after everything was done, I more recently requested the full autopsy results.
And the DOJ, the Southern District of New York, prohibited the medical examiner's office from giving me everything.
They redacted part of the file until for a while.
Finally, we were able to get it.
But why?
The question becomes: why all of the gangs?
Why all the obstacation?
It just doesn't make any sense.
And then when we fill it out, it will conclusively show that there was not a suicide.
And then he got his money.
We were talking earlier.
But then who killed him or who had the job?
Right.
Well, they're legitimate follow-up questions, if, as you say, it wasn't as it seemed.
And hopefully they will continue to investigate that because there are so many conspiracy theories swirling about it.
We were talking earlier about how King Charles III in the UK has a big issue, of course, reputationally with his brother.
It pales into insignificance compared to what I imagine you've been through as Jeffrey Epstein's brother.
What is life for you like as the brother of perhaps the most notorious person in America?
Well, my life is fine.
I'm just getting a lot more calls from journalists and ask for these kinds of interviews.
And I've told people I only talk about Jeffrey's death because I found that when I answer questions about anything else in the files, whatever I say gets misconstrued to fit somebody's agenda.
So I no longer answer questions about the things in the files, which I really, to be honest, don't care about.
I wasn't part of any of that.
I'm not named in anything.
And, you know, and if anyone's in the files or something, that's supposed to be getting into trouble for something.
I have nothing to do with that.
That's their problem, not mine.
I don't want to be cold about it, but I have my own life.
Look, trust me, it would have been a lot easier for me if I thought Jeffrey committed suicide.
I could have then, you know, mourned my brother and went on with my life.
But instead, I'm not sure.
But when you say, when you say, yeah, sure, but when you say you don't care about the files, I mean, I presume you mean because you're not directly accused of wrongdoing in them, which is completely correct and you shouldn't have to justify something that doesn't involve you.
However, your brother is obviously, there's so much stuff in these files which exposes him as an appalling human being.
My question for you would be: how much of this is new to you?
I mean, do you even recognize Jeffrey and I were not, we didn't, I didn't see him for seven years before he died, although we were always in communication with phones and emails.
So I didn't know what he was up to.
A lot of the stuff that's come out is surprising to me.
I wasn't aware of a lot of this stuff.
And I'm going to say, like, with him, even though he's my brother, that was his problem.
And now that he's dead, it's not his problem anymore.
So again, unfortunately, I really don't care, to be honest with you.
I'm just concerned that my brother, whoever and whatever he was, was murdered.
That's my concern.
But you care about the victims, I presume, of your brother.
These are the questions I don't get into.
Have a good day.
Okay.
Well, extraordinary.
Not a difficult question to answer.
Let me come back to Victoria Harvey.
I mean, in a way, his response is not entirely.
I have an idea.
Hang on.
Let me ask you a question.
Yeah, the way this works is I ask you questions.
But, you know, in a way, I don't think you care particularly about you.
Hang on, let me finish.
Please let me ask you a question.
You asked me.
And my question is this.
Well, because I haven't asked you a question.
So the way this works is I host, I have people on the panel.
I ask you a question and then you answer.
If you want to jump in before the question's asked, it doesn't work.
Okay.
Here's my question for you.
You know, he's just, Mark Epstein has just hung up because I have the audacity to ask him if he cares about the victims of his brother.
It's a pretty telling, shocking moment, frankly.
The least he can do is say, yeah, of course I do.
But he couldn't bring himself to do it for whatever reason.
And he can live with his answer.
In your case, the one thing I'd say, I've known you a long time, right?
We've always got on well.
But I really felt a while ago you went down a path with these victims of Epstein where you just decided none of it was true.
It was all a witch hunt, all a stitch-up.
Andrew was completely innocent.
And in Virginia Dufray's case, in particular, you've been so scathing about her.
And you specifically said the picture of her with Andrew was fake.
She never had sex with him.
It's all lies.
Just on those two points alone, we now know from the files two things: one, the picture is genuine, confirmed by Ghillaine Maxwell in the files.
And secondly, it's confirmed that they had a sexual relationship.
That is confirmed in correspondence involving Jeffrey Epstein.
So on those two significant points alone, has this not given you pause for thought?
So you might just be batting the, you might just be backing the wrong horse here.
Okay, can I start calmly?
Yeah.
Right.
So I absolutely, you know, if for any real victims out there, I have a huge sympathy for any real victims.
The problem is, when I started looking into the case, I found that the main girls that were escalated into the media by the lawyers were not real victims.
And this is where I had my issue about it.
Now, Virginia Dufray, she recanted her story on multiple people, Harvard professor, Alan Dershowitz.
You know, there was even the granddaughter of Jacques Cousteau that had never met her.
She made up a lot of stories.
She got busted.
She then changed her stories and she said, oh, no, no, no, I never went to New Mexico with Prince Andrew.
When she had given graphic information and talked about horse rides and drinking champagne, and then she said, oh, it never happened.
Now, that is one of the reasons I never believe Virginia, because there was just so much information out there.
Victoria, here's the problem.
I come with the next piece of the picture.
Let me finish my point.
And you do not have the facts.
Fine, you don't have facts.
You don't have facts.
Let me just put to you this: Virginia Dufray in that picture with Andrew was 17 years old.
It's not a real photo, Pierce.
Come on.
It is a real photo.
Ghillen Metzov confirmed this.
We have one second.
We did.
We had this conversation two weeks ago, and I said that was a draft statement done by her PR and it was never used.
This is the problem, though.
Why would this is the problem?
You're not going to believe anything that disproves your bonkers theory.
Why would Gillene?
This is all some great stitch-up.
Listen to me.
One second.
Why would Gillen lie to the DOJ?
Gillen told the DOJ and in that prison interview, there are over 50 things wrong with that photo.
Why would she lie to the DOJ when she's trying to get out of jail?
She's not going to.
We've literally seen in their own words in the files the picture's genuine and that they had and that they had a sexual relationship.
Listen.
You still have your blinkers on.
You don't want to believe it.
And my advice to you is there's going to be a point with this where you have to stop trashing these victims.
I'm just giving you some advice.
As someone who's known you a long time, victim trashing in this and protecting the trash.
Whether it's Epstein, whether it's Andrew, whether it's whatever, there comes a point when reality has to hit fantasy world.
And I think Virginia was a fake term.
Right.
She wasn't a fake victim.
She was a fake victim.
And the way you go after I find repellent.
Breaking News on Royal Scandal00:02:48
All right.
Let me just turn to Bianca quickly because History Uncensore is going great guns.
You did a big royal special last week with Tom Bauer, which was extremely well watched.
You've got a new episode dropping.
What is it?
Later in the week, we'll have a deeper dive into royal scandal.
And actually, I'd been thinking at the end of that conversation there that so much of this revolves around the sexy scroll-stopping term of a social contract, that we expect moral standards from royals in return for them maintaining this position.
And that's what gives Britain its soft power around the world.
That's what elevates the perception of Britain's royal family.
And if that is in crisis, then it's severely detrimental to the British constitution.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
And I think actually a really important point there, Piers, is the fact that there's been some research that suggests that countries with a head of state that isn't also head of government, so America being an example of that, of course, but Donald Trump's both, that they have more stability because people within that country associate their national identity not solely with a party, but with something that can supersede that.
So if you have a monarchy, in theory, if you support the monarchy and you support that, it's a cultural reference point that people share.
But as that degrades and becomes no longer the case, and situations like this corrode that, you get into a very dangerous, precarious position where there isn't really mass consensus over the kind of state and constitution that you have.
So we'll be getting a lot of people.
Yeah, look forward to the deep dive.
History Uncensored has its own accounts on Instagram and X and pretty much everywhere else.
Or you can follow Bianca, but certainly look at History Uncensored and subscribe and follow lots of great content has been going up there.
So great to have you on my uncensored channel because there are two of us now.
And as we're speaking, just some very interesting breaking news.
I'm not going to ask you guys about this, but as we were talking, Peter Mandelson has just been led out of his house by police reportedly this afternoon.
He's obviously under investigation for misconduct in public office.
That is breaking as we're talking.
So this is a fast-moving story and a very fast-moving scandal.
But thank you all very much.
I appreciate it.
All right.
I just.
Thank you.
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
independent on censored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.