Earl Spencer scandal: Can the Crown survive another crisis?

Andy Burnham and Donald Trump will come face-to-face for the first time at the UN in New York, but can our Prime Minister flutter those eyelashes and reaffirm the special relationship? Our Andy has his work cut out because he's turning up empty-handed. And there are eight big differences between Britain and the United States. Welcome to The Daily Tea with me, Camilla Tominey. And me, Tim Stanley. Burnham's whole vibe is studied mediocrity. And the interesting question is, will that work with Donald Trump? No. Is this a Britain that's got anything to offer the United States? A couple of tickets to see Oasis next year at Nebworth. I mean, genuinely, because also the other thing that Donald Trump admires is kind of success, previous pre-political success. And unfortunately, Andy Burnham can't really brandish that because he hasn't done anything apart from politics. As we speak, Tim, Andy Burnham is on the brink of meeting Donald Trump in New York for this UN summit. Just before we get into that, and indeed, how the Prime Minister was dressed for the flight. I mean, I understand the whole, like, let's put leisure wear on, you know, Victoria Beckham. She changes into some pyjamas. And he is going to take a very long flight. I'm almost in pyjamas and slippers when I get on those things. But he is our Prime Minister. And what we want is Anthony Eden in a. You know, in a double-breasted Savile Row suit. Well, not even Anthony Eden, Anthony Blair. I mean, just put a tie on, man. Instead, the shirt is crumpled. The buttons are undone. He just, he actually looks like at the end of the flight. That's right. Or like he's going on holiday. Like, oh, the next thing we know, he's going to be photographed with a bucket hat on. He looks like he's had six gin and tonics and he's watched Fast and Furious 12 times. That's right. And before we get into it, can I just refer to somebody who's always. Who is immaculately dressed. And that's Bridget Philipson. We're going head to head at the Liver building on Sunday. It's the Sunday showdown to mark all showdowns. You can get your tickets. The details are in the show notes. And you do not need to be accredited to this conference. We know that there are people who are accredited. Loonies like us who have to cover these things. Nobody in their right mind would be attending this conference unless they're actually affiliated to the Labour Party or the media. Way to turn off the audience. But. We are hoping to get some Labour delegates. But you don't need to be a delegate. You just need to be interested in a good lefty-righty slanging match. So please do sign up. Right, sorry. So back to Burnham. Badly dressed. His wife's there. What? What's that face mean? Just would have liked to have seen her in a bit more of a glamorous kind of block colour kind of sort of thing that I wear on a Sunday morning type outfit. But no matter. OK, you want to see her in an airline stewardess. What do we say now? Hostess? Stewardess? I can't keep up anymore. But you want her. Oh, I don't want to dress like an air hostess. I mean, that would be really weird with a little hat on. I mean, it's not. Come around with a trolley. Sort of day one at Aintree. I just think, like, I don't know. I thought they both looked too underdressed for the first meeting with the President of the United States. But maybe they're going to change. And we're filming this literally as they're touching down and going for this meeting. Oh, God. No. Because Trump, who is a. A very genial host. I've been doing a lot of reading for a book chapter I'm writing. I've been reading a lot of things about Trump recently. And everyone who ran against him subsequently met him and then said, what a lovely man. Yes. It really surprised them how genial he could be, especially if you're visiting him. But Trump tends to be drawn to the best looking or the richest person in the room. Yes. Or someone with a cut glass accent. Yes. Now, I know that Keir Starmer's accent to us sounded like eating broken glass. That's right. But. For Americans, because he was clear. Yes. It was a very compelling accent. And he sounded extremely English. Yeah. So I'm intrigued to know, in terms of personal chemistry, if Trump gets on with a man who's sort of playing Trump at his own game, which is populism and appealing to the left-behinds of the working class. Will he need a translator for the Northern accent? Let's hope not. I mean, to be fair, Donald Trump can understand Scots. Yes. So he can surely understand the King of the North. Smothers from the Isle. Smothers from the Isle of Wight. Smothers from the Isle of Lewis. But as they meet for their first bilat, it's worth considering the many disagreements that now exist between the UK and the United States. It's a hell of a list. I've written them down. Number one, the Chagos Islands. Yes. Well, apparently, according to the Mauritians, Andy Burnham is absolutely chomping at the bit to give away these islands. He said, I will do whatever is necessary to see the islands given over. Kemi Badenoch has replied, Why? Can you never do everything that is necessary to, for instance, cut welfare? Yeah, or stop the boats. Why is it always weird foreign things like getting rid of our islands or sanctioning settlers on the West Bank? Why is it never domestic things? And we will stop at nothing to reverse the referendum that you all voted for in 2016. Yeah, we'll stop at nothing to rebuild our relationship with the European Union. So this is point one is Chagos because Trump is against the deal. Yes. He believes it's going to weaken because the US uses the base. And he thinks it's going to weaken American defence. Second thing they disagree with is Israel. Yes. Now, Britain has decided to sanction some settlers on the West Bank. It should be pointed out that we're all surprised that Marco Rubio didn't condemn the action. Nonetheless, America is squarely behind Benjamin Netanyahu and Britain is not. Disagreement number three, drilling, we should do this at the top of the pop, shouldn't we? Number three, drilling in the North Sea. Yes. Donald Trump has said, why don't you just go ahead with doing it? The Prime Minister continues to equivocate about Rose Bank. It's a semi-judicial process, etc. But the point is, Labour is all in favour of wind, whereas the United States is saying, please open up the North Sea. Just an addendum to that. Andy Burnham is believed to have told his nearest and dearest that he does want to drill, baby, drill, but he's worried about the optics. Oh, the optics. Well, that's so important. Well, the vibes. You can't ruin your vibes. You don't want to be ruining the vibes with the green crowd. You don't want to blow your vibes. Disagreement number three, number four, although this one has been settled, that's the future of Greenland. Yes. The United States has now signed an agreement with Denmark which guarantees Greenland's sovereignty, but also America's right to continue to operate bases and to build new ones as it sees fit. That, by the way, is almost nothing new to the existing treaty and the Danes are laughing at it. But again, the point is, there's a tension between the United States and Europe and Britain's on the other side of that. Disagreement number five, the Falkland Islands. Again, I want to stress, yes, here, State Department's position has not changed, but Trump's key ally in the region is Javier Millet, head of Argentina, and Argentina is now saying we want them back, or at least is trying to prevent drilling off the Falklands. Chainsaw-wielding, mad politician. Exactly. Disagreement number six, Britain has not yet come up with a clear plan to get to 3.5% of GDP going on defence by 2035. Or, indeed, 3% of GDP by 2030, Tim. We're at around, what, 2.4% at the moment? We are still in John Healey resignation territory. This is what he quit over. He's now the chancellor overseeing the not-big-enough increase to defence spending that he resigned over. Yeah, and you've got to feel for Trump on this one because since 2016, he has been pushing NATO to up its game and Britain keeps positioning itself as the most fervent ally in the war against Russia and Ukraine, but we're still in the middle of a war. We're still not hitting our own targets. Disagreement number seven, the future of Ireland. The president recently visited Ireland and when asked about the divided country, he said, I hope someday they will be reunited. I suspect that up until that point, Donald Trump had literally never thought about it. No. And it's a classic example of him just saying what an audience wants to hear. But it is hugely embarrassing. Unless he actually got it the wrong way around, I've been thinking about this and thought that a united Ireland means, dragging the whole of the rest of Ireland back into the United Kingdom. If any Irish people are watching, we do not want to do that. Please don't write in. We don't want to do that. Please, I'm not stirring that up again. I mean, as a good Catholic, Andy Burnham might have a degree of sympathy with that in private, but not in public at all because he is the prime minister of the United Kingdom, Tim. It's an incredibly sensitive issue around which a prime minister has to be very careful how he treads because our line is always, it's up to the people of the province. They get to decide what their future is. It's not down to Donald Trump. It's either Donald Trump or the Taoiseach saying what they think should happen. By the way, when Trump said that, I did think that the Taoiseach looked very uncomfortable because the last thing he wants right now is Northern Ireland joining Ireland. He spat out his tea and he was shocked. Sorry, that's a terrible joke. Carry on. The final, very important disagreement they've had is over Iran because, of course, Labour refused to allow the United States to use British military capabilities in his first attack upon Iran. But in a sort of a utopian, return now, Andy Burnham has said that the Saudis can receive help from Britain to refuel their jets in their war against the Houthis. Yes. So this is something we're very interested to see. Will Burnham reset US and British relations by working closer with the Americans against Iran and its proxies? I know, but then I think it's one thing to supply some air support to the Saudis, quite another to go along with Donald Trump when he says he wants to bomb Iran out of existence. Yes. My impression is, is that Burnham's a bit more of a lover than a fighter, Tim, let's see. Well, that's true. And also the Labour backbenchers are not keen on this war against the Houthis, which they see as US imperialism and the Saudi Arabians have terrible human rights records, et cetera, et cetera. So it's going to be a tense one to sell at home. But in an article that David Blair wrote for us, he pointed out a very important detail, which is that when Starmer visited a couple of years ago, he brought the one thing that Britain can bring to the negotiating table, which is a meeting with the royals. He literally like brought it out of his own pocket. He whipped a letter out. I mean, it was the most theatrical Keir Starmer has ever been. Yeah. I have in my hand. An invitation to visit the royals in Britain. When you visited it, he was like, shall I read it now? Yeah. Yes, if you would. You know, there was a bit of balance between them, wasn't there? He also said, Donald, I love your wife. She's so glamorous, Victoria. And Keir said, I second that. So there was a little bit of humour there. And I'm wondering whether Burnham's going to be able to recreate this sort of bantz. But let's see. Starmer, who's already fled the commons, triggering a by-election, has been saying to his friends, I want to do something in the foreign policy realm. Of course, we're all saying is that, does that mean he wants to run NATO? But I think we have to give Starmer credit for one thing. He was quite good at behind the scenes diplomacy. And that stunt is credited with helping to stop America from cutting a deal with the United States. So he's going to be able to do that. With Putin over Ukraine and keeping them on the right side in the war. My point and David Blair's point is this. Two years later, we've had two state visits. We've had the bicentennial. What has Burnham got to offer Trump that Trump could possibly want? Because a country like Britain, which isn't willing to spend more on defence, a country like Britain, which has said when it came to Iran, we're going to take a step back, basically because of our backbenchers and because of people like Ed Miliband, you know, with his fruity, nutty flapjack. Yes. It was his vegan, vegan, nutty flapjack. Oh, come on, Ed. Moved on from bacon sandwiches. And he was filmed in New York walking, I thought, quite awkwardly to a car and talking about, we've seen what we can do. We've seen what we can do with Israel. What have you done? You've achieved nothing in Israel. It's so strange. Do we think he didn't eat bacon again after that moment? And that's what drove him to do that? It could be, couldn't it? It was a banana and then it was a bacon sandwich. And now he's a vegan. I didn't think people really were vegans. I thought it was made up. Do you remember that time when, on a job together, you had two flapjacks in a row and nearly died? Yeah. It can be too much. It would explain a lot if that's what's happened to the British government. But my serious point is here, a Britain with a denuded military, a Britain which seems to be more interested in posturing on the world stage and allying with developing countries against the West. Is this a Britain that's got anything to do with that? I don't know. Anything to offer the United States? Mayor of Manchester. Yeah, but it's still a political role, right? I mean, previously, at least Keir Starmer could say, listen, I trained as a lawyer and I was so successful that I became the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is a CV there and something beyond the realms of Westminster and indeed Manchester. So I think that's tricky. Second of all, I mean, you're suggesting, I think probably accurately, that even Brits regard the Prime Minister as an insubstantial, fairly irrelevant figure right now. With zero foreign policy experience. Literally immortalised by that great chronicler of the times, the Samuel Pepys of 2026, Danny Dyer, viral basically saying, who is the Prime Minister? Who is he? He was unpleasant about David Cameron as well. This is Danny Dyer's shtick. And let's not forget that he also memorialised 9-11 on, I think it was the 20th anniversary by saying, cannot believe it's been 20 years since Dem slags slammed into the Twin Towers. He used the words Dem slags, which, let's be honest, will be in a future book of British history. But it's the vibe we need, isn't it? No, but Danny Dyer is capturing. We should send Danny Dyer over there. I mean, to be fair, Danny Dyer might get on better with Donald Trump than Andy Burnham, just because he would cut straight to the chase. You can imagine Andy Burnham sort of, oh, on the one hand and then on the other, you know, prevaricating in answers to questions. And the Donald will be there going, you know, come on, mate. I can't wait to see Andy Burnham say something facile about America, because that's what he tends to do. I mean, when he was talking about the Bayeux tapestry in the House of Commons, it was obvious he didn't know what it was. And you could just say, I love America. I love America. You know, you think about the films. Yeah. Oh, no. Just imagine the creepy things he's going to say. Have you ever met Tom Cruise and stuff like that? Yeah, exactly. Exactly. But I can tell you exactly what's going to happen. Trump will meet him, will be perfectly charming, and he'll say, it's the best prime minister I've ever met. And then the next day, he'll go on telly and say, we're going to invade Basingstoke. Yeah, or Makerfield. Whatever he says. We're going to buy Makerfield. It's going to be the 51st state. It'll have no impact upon Donald Trump's thinking. We get on better with Democrats because Democrats still think in multilateral terms. Multi. Multilateral terms of a world that works together through institutions. Donald Trump is a great power player. He's interested in people who've got guns and money. That's why he takes Putin so sort of embarrassingly seriously. That's why he takes Xi seriously. The appeal that Britain has is a connection through his mother to Scotland and the glamour of the royal family. But I'm afraid I don't think America looks at us and thinks of us as an equal partner in a special relationship. Charles Spencer's incendiary book does have a ring of truth to it, according to the man who exposed the former Duke of York's lies. And while we're on that subject, just how much of a reclusive life, is Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor really living? Andrew Lowney is back in the Daily Tea studio. Lovely to see you, Andrew. Good to see you too. From one author of sensational royal books to another, we wanted to quiz you about Charles Spencer's Swan Song, an ode to his sister Diana, which, let's be honest, has made almost as many headlines as your books, Andrew. What's your view? Well, I haven't read the book, but I've talked to people who have read it and say that the book is much more nuanced. And the rather sensationalist Cyril would suggest. I think I need to clearly, I can't really form judgment until I read it. A lot of it rings true to me. I mean, clearly, there are a lot of unverifiable claims there. A lot of it is about his perception. And I think it's very unfortunate that some of those statements he's made can't be verified. I mean, I suspect some of the people he shared that information with don't feel they want to go public supporting him. But it does sort of fit into the fact there was a kind of created narrative. Around that time, about Charles's relationship with Diana. I mean, there was briefing to newspapers and to books, you know, presenting her as mentally unbalanced. And I'm inclined to think that there is some truth in what he's saying. I think it's just unfortunate that many of the claims, you know, are clearly quite personal and are very difficult to prove one way or the other. Only two people know what was said. And I suspect in the sort of. Pain of that time, things were said by both parties that they might now regret and things were said that were misinterpreted. So it's one of those things I think we won't ever really get to the bottom of. What about the palace's response? Does that ring any bells for someone who's written about the royals? Yes, I think it's interesting that they've responded so quickly and so decisively. I mean, they're on the front foot for once. I've talked to Patrick Jefferson, for example, who was a private secretary. So I think there's some truth in what he's saying. But I think it's. Been taken slightly out of context and clearly the male has sensationalized some aspects of it. The bits I'm told in the book, which are actually very positive about the king. You have said that some of the claims remind you of Virginia Giffray's accusations against Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Explain that, Andrew. Yes, I don't mean the claims he's making are similar to the claims that Virginia Giffray made about Prince Andrew. But her response, you know, when she doubled down and said, I'm speaking truthfully, is very much what he said. And, you know, he, I mean, there have been attempts to discredit him as an individual. But I think, you know, he is seen as a serious person. I know I work with him on the Dinerama book about the Bashir interview, which came out last year. And it was very clear there that he had kept very detailed notes. I mean, he was meticulous about recording things. Now, we don't have that, unfortunately, in this case. He had conversations with other people. I think, you know. Everyone's criticized him saying he's just making money out of this. Well, we don't know what he's going to do with the money. I mean, the money may well go to charity. Who knows? I do think he needs to explain why he's waited so long. I mean, it's very interesting that people who might have challenged his narrative, like Robert Fellows, are now dead. And I think that's the question that I would put to him. Why now rather than 10 years ago? People are criticizing him saying, well, this is not what you said in Larry King in 1997. But I think the mood was very different then. And I think there were probably things he didn't feel he could. say at that point that maybe he feels he can say now. Just to clarify by Robert Fellows, was the late Queen's former private secretary, but also married to one of Diana's sisters. So those sorts of people, as you say, are no longer in the picture to kind of confirm or deny some of the claims that have been made. What do you make of the news story that Victoria Ward has written today for The Telegraph suggesting that Prince Harry is now contemplating making a documentary about Diana? Well, I mean, that was always a suspicion. I mean, we remember when Prince Edward was making films that he ended up just making films about members of the royal family. So I don't think that's a surprise. I don't think that from what I've heard that Charles Spencer was particularly close to Harry, though he was staying there. I think he kind of wants to keep out of the whole thing. He said that he's there for both brothers. So I don't think this is some big conspiracy that's been cooked up. But it doesn't surprise me that Harry should be kind of looking to monetize in some ways his mother's. Legacy. I mean, he would say to shape it. And I think in some ways that's what Charles Spencer's doing. I mean, he's being approached by lots of people to appear in programs. He wants to have his own narrative out there before all the other books appear next summer. You've written a great deal about the challenges facing the royal family, the mistakes they have made. Is this story something just passing that won't have much of an impact? Or do you regard this as part of a larger picture of the crisis? In the royal family's image? Yeah, I think it is part of a longer-term trend. And I mean, it's interesting, John Humphreys did a program a few weeks ago where he showed that actually support for the royal family had gone down in a steady way. There haven't been these sudden moments. But I do think people sense that the monarchy is vulnerable. I mean, clearly we have a king who is not very well. And there have been a few missteps, I think, in terms of how they dealt with Prince Andrew. And I think they're changing that approach. So I think they are vulnerable. And I think people are trying to take advantage of that. We're seeing that on social media. We're seeing it, I think, with slightly emboldened press, particularly some of the stuff on Substack and some of the podcasts. So yeah, I think they are slightly on the back foot. I mean, there's still a groundswell of support for them. I think if they're found to have covered up the Epstein story, which is what I suspect, then I think that's not going to help them. And I think clearly on this story, if it does emerge that people do come out, then I think there will be a suspicion that the palace hasn't been entirely honest. And that, of course, will be damaging. Just in the interest of balance, Andrew, this is the palace statement on Epstein. A spokesman said, The king has made clear in words and through unprecedented actions, his profound concern at allegations which continue to come to light in respect of Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor's conduct. While the specific claims in question are for Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor to address, if we are approached by Thames Valley police, we stand ready to support them as you would expect. As was previously stated, their majesty's thoughts and sympathies have been and remain with the victims of any and all forms of abuse. I was going to say about these revelations about the palace not being entirely honest, just as the late Queen Elizabeth II had this never complain, never explain mantra. In the past, I suppose the institution was treated with a bit more respect and that quite a lot was left unsaid. But it wasn't. Well, that's the fascinating thing that the Spencer saga has reminded us of is how awful the tabloids were back in the 1990s. No, but I mean, if you're going to be reporting a briefing war because sources close to Diana are calling you saying Charles has done X, Y, and Z, and then sources close to Charles are ringing you and saying, well, Diana's gone completely bonkers and don't you know she's mentally unstable. And then it creates this industry around a couple predicated on the War of the Waleses. Then as journalists, you can't. You can't really ignore those briefings. What I think's been interesting. I'm going to have to step in here because as you know, Piers Morgan is threatening to sue Earl Spencer over a false claim in the book that Morgan, when he was allegedly editor of the Sunday Mirror, it turns out he wasn't, had published photos of Diana in the gym. Yes. Spencer said these photos were taken in 1993 and it's transpired that Morgan wasn't in charge until 1995. Until 1995. He was actually in charge. The son at the time. But my point is, this was an era in which someone in a gym would happen to spot Diana going in, take photos of it, and it would appear in a tabloid. This was an era in which a radio ham would happen to pick up a conversation between Charles and his lover and would give it to a tabloid and they would publish it. Now, I hope things have changed, but my point is, I think actually the media environment was more hostile for the Royals 30 years ago. And that's what the whole Spencer and Diana thing has brought back, like PTSD, is how badly the family used to be treated by the press. And yet, just to add one final thing, the irony is, you're absolutely right, Andrew, if you look at the polling, support for the monarchy as a whole, as an institution, has actually declined quite steadily in the last decade. In a period of relative media subservience, Yes. the mistakes and the embarrassments that have hit the family in the last 10 years have been largely self-inflicted. Yes. They're not the product of an aggressive media anymore. No. They're Harry and Meghan swanning off. They're Andrew trying to cover things up, inviting the media in and lying. And as you said in our programme yesterday, Spencer writing the book, the media didn't come to Spencer and say, tell us what's on your mind. He came to us. But I think what I'm trying to say is, because of these people from within, I can agree, because Andrew has documented it, the former Duke of York being the architect of his own, and what he's done and undoing is one thing. But Andrew's book has sort of laid bare. It's asked questions about what did the palace know and when, and why hasn't it been straightforward? And then it's called into question, actually, the late Queen's management of that situation, particularly. Yeah. We then have from within, Harry and Meghan exposing the monarchy for some of its ills, and basically claiming that it nearly drove the Duchess to suicide. Yeah. In this, from Charles Spencer, have a turning on its head of the established narrative about Diana's death, which is that the King was devastated. To go from the scenes of him travelling over to Paris, going to the hospital, identifying her body, emerging completely distraught with tears in his eyes, breaking the news of her death to his sons at the ends of their beds in Balmoral, all the way to actually he was giddy, elated, and acting as if he had won the lottery, is quite the. The turnabout is what I'm saying. Yes. I mean, I think there are very few people who will support that statement about the King, you know, being rather callous in his response, because that gets very clearly shown. I mean, how devastated he was at the time. So I think there's some statements there that just don't stand up. I'm just amazed about the Piers Morgan thing, and the copy editor should have checked that statement. Well, Simon and Schuster have decided to go ahead with publishing a memoir by Jason Ardett. Jason Ardett, the late academic, who was accused of being a fantasist. Yes. Right? So it's just an interesting reflection upon the publishing industry, that is willing to take these risks on people. Well, I mean, the point that was made, sorry to interrupt, by Alexander Pringle, I think, on the Today programme, who's a former publisher, is that memoir is about, you know, people's own lived truths rather than certain truths. And I think that there is a growing sense in these memoirs that that, you know, you're allowed. I suppose it's the notion of cover up, which is damaging for the palace. You know, did they cover up for Prince Andrew? Did they cover up for the king who wasn't quite as distraught about his ex-wife's death as everybody thought? We had Dickie Arbiter in the Daily Tea talking about the fact that they weren't able to give honest answers to the press, to honest questions about whether there was a third person in the Wales's marriage. But then this is the difficulty, as Andrew has well documented, of managing both a family and a firm. I mean, there are PR statements given out by every institution in the land in order to protect the reputation of that organisation. But most organisations are protecting kind of commercial property. What you've got in the case of the House of Windsor is human fallibility. Yeah, that's a good point. Being at the heart of an institution that then has a constitutional significance. Horny teenagers and gold-digging wives. They exist everywhere. And Charles Spencer makes a distinction. It's a distinction between the monarchy and the man in terms of his views of Charles. But his book, your book, Harry's book, some of these revelations are destabilising. I mean, to Tim's point about, are we now in the realms of considering whether this is an existential crisis? I mean, what's been particularly notable, what's spoken volumes, because it hasn't spoken at all, is the mouse that doesn't bear to squeak, the person inheriting all this, Prince William. What does Prince William do? He has to stay silent. Because if he gets dragged into all this, then what does it say about the future of this institution, Andrew? Well, I mean, I think, you know, dignified silence is often the best policy. I mean, I think the feeling is that Charles Spencer may hang, a bit like Harry, may hang himself on his own petard. And, you know, this is a problem going to go away. But I agree. I think it's just another little, a little nick in the whole thing. And those things will grow. I mean, you know, sometimes it's, you know, the statement is, you know, something happens gradually, and then something changes. And the whole thing. thing falls down and you know i do worry that a lot of the what they do is performative a lot of there's a big gap between the the narrative that's presented and the reality i mean we saw that with with the appearance on the programs by the king with jonathan dimpleby we you know it's now very clear that relationship with camilla parker balls continued all the way through the marriage and yet you know the statement was made that it only began after the marriage had broken down so is everyone expected to be a completely open book is everyone expected to go into interviews and bear their souls and reveal their most intimate and private information that was a statement that they chose to make um i mean they could have said you know it's none of your business and i think the thing is with the monarchy we do hold them up to higher standards we do look up to them they're meant to set an example uh and most of them do most of them do terrific job and um i think the sad thing is that there are these you know there are these instances and it comes down to i think entitlement and the lack of proper transparency and accountability where people are allowed to get away with behavior uh and and that kind of undermines or diminishes the institution itself sure i mean i you know the princess royal's marriage to mark phillips broke down she then remarried it's interesting that we don't get all of that raked over even though there is a degree of salaciousness to it you know he went off and had a sort of love child and was a quite colorful figure in his in his day i just think it's interesting how we treat different members of the family and on on the prince andrew or the andrew formerly known as prince front uh we reported at the weekend that he is living in exile in sandringham since his arrest in february and he feels he is living in limbo as he waits for the long-running police investigation into him to conclude what do you know of these matters andrew i mean there are unconfirmed claims that that andrew is visiting uh other members of the family including princess anna gatt compote smuggled in in a horse box now allegedly allegedly it seems it seems very strange way i mean why he can't just go in a car with darkened windows but that's those are the stories so sorry you're saying that this picture of him is some kind of agoraphobic recluse isn't quite right is he socializing is he seeing anyone i was told he'd been in the south of france and spotted there with two two women in their 40s he was supposedly looking for a property to buy there which doesn't suggest he feels he's going to spend his days in sandringham or belmarsh so i i i'm not sure i think that there's there's been a lot of spin you know this poor man is suicidal he's you know his life has been destroyed but whenever i talk to anyone who's close to him he's still very bombastic and arrogant and uh has no sense of of uh that his that he's destroyed the lives of others in his family and in his own life and reputation uh he hasn't really come to terms with it and unconfirmed reports andrew that he may be in a relationship but we again are completely unconfirmed we cannot corroborate this unconfirmed i mean of course you know there are some sources that are more reliable than others uh and um anyway i don't recollections may vary i don't think his his life is quite as bad as everyone's made out can we just reflect before you go andrew on um i think i mean i'm not sure how i would feel if these two turned up in my local but um again unconfirmed reports tim that megan has i'm just talking about norfolk social scene let's imagine being in the cotswolds yeah you walk into the local equivalent of the slaughtered lamb it's like a scene out of no american werewolf in london yeah music stops yes oh my god is that brian glover puts down his pint indeed is that and they're in a corner and oh who's she who's she having a gin and tonic with it's ellen degeneres it's ellen degeneres yes who of course also lives in the country with her wife portia de rossi i am fascinated to learn that ellen degeneres is 68 oh i thought she was um really that's horrible look a day under 90 oh gosh only a woman would say that i feel so old well i just don't know i'm i'm being slightly circumspect about ellen degeneres because of course she left hollywood under some cloud so that that's quite the meeting of the minds andrew well i mean it's interesting you know all these things are done in public uh you know if someone who wants a quiet life i would have a gin and tonic with her in the kitchen yes are you hearing anything about the cotswolds situation with harry and megan yes everything i i've heard is that no one wants anything to do with them right except of course ellen degeneres and who can blame her well i mean they're being put up in we can't talk about their location for security reasons but no you know they're they're they've not left yet but they're here in the country they're living a perfectly ordinary british life in a pub with ellen degeneres they're just getting on with it and the children are at a local school so it'll be interesting i mean you know take a child out of school once it's unfortunate but to do it twice seems to be cruel yes so therefore we think they may go the distance in the new place and uh we wish them well with that and if you wanted to find out more about their security arrangements vicky ward and i did interview uh the british equivalent of jack reacher about all that and you can watch that on the daily t2 andrew liney thank you very much indeed for joining us today on the podcast once again always a pleasure you