‘Vote-grabbing’: Backlash over Burnham’s Israel sanctions

Ed Miliband wants to reset the government's policy on Israel, but is it just a desperate attempt to garner votes? And they're not the second coming, they're just private citizens. As Harry and Meghan wait to hear about their security status, the King makes it clear that the Sussexes are not working royals. Welcome to The Daily Tea with me, Camilla Tominey. And me, Tim Stanley. I think he's doing it for politically motivated reasons, because we've now got a by-election in Holborn and St Pancras. The Prime Minister's old seat is now being threatened by Polanski of the Greens, who we all know is extremely pro-Palestinian. So I think that there is some jiggery-pokery going on here, and there is a chasing of the Muslim votes ahead of two potential elections. Tim, should we start with a quiz? Because we love quizzes, don't we? They're certainly not pointless. No, they're not. Although I am. Yeah, thanks for that, Jive. I said they're not pointless. That's a reference to me crashing out of pointless. I'm a celebrity, Prime Minister. I'd forgotten about that. I think you're just trying to needle me. I genuinely was just making a pun. I forgot that you crashed and burned on pointless. Worst contestants ever. Me and Rachel Johnson. Two red crosses. Got to stop going on about it. Might do better in The Weakest Link. Wait and see over Christmas. You can come round and we can watch that together. I may or may not have redeemed myself, but here's a little quiz for you. So Lord Ashcroft, of polling fame, used to be a Tory treasurer, has come up with these word cloud thingamajigs for world leaders? No, for artists. For our leaders, British leaders. So do you know what I mean? I do. This is when they have focus groups and they say, what's the first word that comes into your mind? And the most popular word is biggest in the cloud. That's exactly it. Yes, I love those. Because they always say things like Wally. And then at a very, very small, it'll say quite clever or something like that. Exactly that. So what do you think is the biggest word about the following people? Now, you've got to imagine this is not Tim Stanley's opinion. This is the opinion of the great people of Britain. OK. What do you think the biggest word is for Andy Burnham? Northern. God, that's not even there. Is it not? Oh, my goodness me. OK. No, what else? Oh. He's just so. Nice. Another word for nice. Tedious. It's actually in big red letters. But now. Likeable. Likeable. So really, that's the word that jumps into people's minds. Likeable. Competent, likeable, sensible. Interesting. Has the right ideas, but then in little. Letters weak, out of their depth, untrustworthy. OK. Kemi Badenock. What's the big blue word? Strong. It does begin with an S. Hmm. She's very. Oh, God. She's not mad. She's. Sensible. Yes. Thank you very much. Very interesting. Also strong on competence. But there's also arrogant in there and out of touch. Mm hmm. Ed Davey. Who? Quite. Well, it does begin with a W, funny enough. Well, it's weird. It's it's it's a negative waste of space. It's a four letter word. It rhymes with beak. Weak. Yes, weak is the biggest word for Ed Davey. OK, weird is in there. OK, but haven't they seen him strongly suck up to labour? Well, what you're suggesting, that's a sign of strength. They seen him courageously divest himself of any opinion whatsoever. We've got a little tiny little it's so tiny. I can barely read it because it's in yellow. Competent is there. Right. Now, you mentioned another W word. What's the main word you think was used to describe Zach Polanski? Weird. It is weird. It's a massive, big, weird, in the middle of, out of their depth, dangerous, untrustworthy, arrogant, weak and out of touch. So any good ones there for Zach? Strong and sensible. OK. That was Mr. Polanski's own mother. Mm hmm. Likeable, trustworthy, competent. They're barely legible. Nigel Farage. Ah, yes. It's a big one. It's in turquoise. It's shady. Well, that's interesting because another poll has suggested that I think 71% of Brits think that he is sleazy. According to YouGov, that word doesn't appear. It's a big word beginning with A. Angry. Arrogant. That's it. Really? Yes. Weird, untrustworthy, weak. I mean, come on. Out of their depth, dangerous. Interesting. But then also trustworthy, on my side, competent, sensible, has the right ideas. Mm hmm. I think you did really well there. OK. Thank you. Well done you. So you and I, if anyone wants us to go on, my favourite, celebrity catchphrase, do give us a call. Now, is Ed Miliband passing the Foreign Secretary test? What would be your word in the Ed Miliband cloud? I think Ed lives on a cloud. It would be two fridges. It's a cuckoo's hand. It would be Red Ed. It would be wrong about everything all the time, which I once had on a mug with a symbol of the Guardian's logo on it. Well, it's so unlikely that it's easy to forget, but he is now Foreign Secretary. Well, because he's out of the country, we thought we'd see the back of him. But oh, no, because top of the governmental priority list today, bearing in mind we've got people coming here by barely inflatable dinghy in their droves, we've got masked protesters on the scene, we've got all sorts of economic problems. That John Healey appeared to largely ignore yesterday, we've got a million young people not in education or employment, and I appreciate none of those are foreign affairs, but top of the list of priorities, according to Red Ed, is imposing sanctions on Israel. Right. He's going to announce today that the government is going to impose sanctions on products that are produced in the West Bank. Now, that is the disputed area that should be under the control of the Palestinian Authority. Right. The Israelis have been building settlements and military installations there, and the Israeli government plans to develop 1,200 homes in the E1 area that's east of Jerusalem. Now, this is internationally condemned already, it's regarded as illegal, they absolutely shouldn't be doing it, but the government wants to take one step further and hit them with sanctions on things like mangoes and dates. Now, this is not a sanctions plan for the whole of Israel. No. This is to target a very specific thing, but Israel, which is heading into a general election, has responded with fury across the board, and of course, it's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who our Prime Minister has not yet spoken with, even though the two countries are officially allies. We have a treaty with Israel, and Israel is very important, as Tom Tugendhat, the new Tory shadow foreign secretary, has pointed out, Israel is very important for our own security. Because it is really the West's sort of last Alamo. Yes, buffer against the Middle East. In the Middle East. So, obviously, there's great tension there, but Israel will be particularly worried if this snowballs into the rest of the EU doing it, because something like a third of Israel trade is with Europe. Yes. So, it doesn't want other countries to catch on and start doing similar things, even though countries like Holland, Belgium, Spain are thinking of following suit. It's also angered the Americans. So, there was a. We've got a readout of a call between Andy Burnham and Donald Trump that took place yesterday. Yes. Celebrating Labor Day, without a U, Labor Day. And I love the readout. It's like the two leaders spoke on the phone, and they discussed how they would continue to cooperate on the Middle East. And they discussed this, and they discussed that. Well, it began with the Prime Minister wishing President Trump a happy Labor Day, which also confused the President, because Andy Burnham is a Labor Prime Minister. That's right. What? Who? What? Exactly. How old are you today, Andy? I wonder if Andy played a guitar down the line. Did he treat him to the strings of Wonderwall or something similar? I think he would treat him to war if he had done. They, of course, continue to agree, but also disagree on Ukraine. And on the Middle East, the Prime Minister used it as an opportunity to lay out that Britain is committed to a two-state solution. And this is what the government says this is really all about. Yes. This is about forcing the far-right government of Benjamin Netanyahu. And that government. The government does contain some very suspect people, by the way. Yes, it does. Particularly in the security and foreign briefs. Yes. Who have lashed out at Britain and said that the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina. Yes. This, again, brings us back to the United States. And there's an interesting kind of game of 3D chess going on here right now, because Donald Trump is very close to Javier Millet. He basically bailed him out and helped him to win some recent elections. So they are key strategic allies. Millet, of course, wants what he calls the Malvinas, the Falkland Islands. Britain, meanwhile, has started to allow expiration for oil and gas of the area around the Falklands, which has angered Argentina, because, of course, profits for that will not go to Buenos Aires. They'll go to London and whichever partners are involved in that drilling. And who is Britain's chief partner at the moment in drilling near the Falkland Islands? Israel. Yes. By the way, this exploration is an amazing windfall for the Falklands. You and I are living in the wrong country. Yes, we are. It is calculated that the return to the Falklands citizen is the equivalent of one million pounds a head. Well, you're saying we're living in the wrong country. This is like Norway's sovereign wealth fund. But by the way, we're not living in the wrong country. We've got that thing called the North Sea. It's very lucrative, Tim. If only we'd drill more there and plough it into a fund. Fracking, too. And fracking. Thought might be able to deliver these kind of returns to communities. Oh, no. But it causes earthquakes. causes earthquakes, i.e. it causes as much disturbance But no matter. Anyway, drill, baby drill and all that. Yes, and I agree with you to the extent that you're saying that there are some absolute wrong-uns in Netanyahu's government. And actually, there is a quite cogent debate to say that these settlements are illegal and that perhaps it is appropriate that Britain turns against that aspect of what's going on in the Middle East. However, in the background of all this is suggestions that Ed Miliband in some ways wants to legitimize that ICJ ruling that doesn't say that Israel is committing a genocide, but gets close to it, which has been weaponized by figures on the left, including Jeremy Corbyn, who today, like a stuck record, has put out a tweet saying it is now time for Andy Burnham to recognize that a genocide has taken place and actually impose sanctions on the whole of Israel and go much further. And so we have the new prime minister claiming to be a. Change candidate claiming to really think that the issues facing Britain are incredibly important and wanting to level up the country, while at the same time we discussed this yesterday, he's sort of strumming while Britain burns on the migrants. And now he's involving himself in issues that aren't, I'm afraid, a top priority to anybody on the doorstep of the UK. And I'm going to call it as I see it right now. And I think he's doing it for politically motivated reasons, because we've now got a by-election in Holborn and St. Pancras. On. October the 8th, which Labour Labour seat, Keir Starmer's old seat, the prime minister's old seat is now being threatened by Polanski of the Greens, who we all know is extremely pro-Palestinian and appeals to that base in that part of North London. And we've got the prospect potentially of a general election looming sooner than we thought, sooner than 2029. You've got lots of nervous Labour backbenchers with lots of Muslim constituents in their seats, and they're worried about losing those votes to pro-Gaza independence. So I think that there is some jiggery-pokery going on here, and there is a chasing of the Muslim vote ahead of two potential elections. That's what I see. Well, as you know, I'm something of an outlier at The Telegraph with my views on Israel. And I think it should be acknowledged that violence is reported to have increased in the West Bank. That's settler violence against the people who live there. The actions being taken by the Israeli government are illegal and widely recognised. And the response to the threat of these very limited sanctions has been absurd. US Ambassador Mike Huckabee has actually accused the British government of anti-Semitism. Well, Ed Miliband is Jewish. Yes, you can get Jew-hating Jews, but I take your point. Well, of course you can. I do, and I think that there's something of a stretch in saying, well, you're accusing us of being a colonial power, but you're a colonial power in the case of the Falklands. It's very. It's very, very different. And indeed, it's instructive. The difference is instructive. The Falklands people have voted in a referendum overwhelmingly to remain a British overseas territory. That is not the case in the West Bank. But I am very suspicious about the timing. Well, it's just symbolic as well. It doesn't have any effect at all. It doesn't make any difference to the conflict in the Middle East to have Ed Miliband tinkering at the sidelines. Therefore, the timing is suspicious. Yes. And I want to stress I do not favour sanctions on Israel. And I certainly don't support the divest, boycott and divest and sanction movement either. I don't think. I think that's entirely counterproductive. And the use of the word genocide, I think, is inaccurate and unhelpful. Nonetheless, it really is the timing that makes me very suspicious. One of the first things Burnham did when he became leader was to apologise for Labour's position in the past. All Labour really has tried to do is walk a very thin line, which is almost identical to the line walked by the previous. Tory government. Yes. Between saying, oh, we don't like what's happening in Gaza, but we are allies of Israel. We recognise it as a sovereign democracy. It's defending itself. Yeah. As Starmer said, and then those words came back to haunt him. It's a very difficult line to walk. What Burnham is all about is knitting the progressive coalition back together in this country. And a key element of that, which has drifted away from Labour, is the Muslim vote, but also left-wing white progressives. Yes. Who are not just angry about, but obsessed with Israel. So it does feel like this is being cynically deployed. Yes. In order to get Labour voters to come home again. Sure. Can we also talk about the timing of Stella Creasy's intervention yesterday, which I must say I found as baffling as her claim to me for an interview for this newspaper some years ago, that women could indeed have a penis. So we have Creasy, who famously. I confused parakeets and parrots fairly recently. You and I are both familiar with the Labour MP for Walthamstow. I'm going to just suggest that you and I are perhaps not her favourite people on earth. We're on the other side. I have been on Question Time and other shows with her, and I would describe her feelings towards me as less than warm. Let's put it that way. However, however, I did have to double take when this so-called. feminist, women's empowerment champion, self-styled, did a couple of posts yesterday on X. First of all, celebrating a Muslim march, which saw women completely segregated and unable to take part. When it was pointed out that that wasn't particularly progressive, she then posted a second video in which she tried to celebrate a group of Muslim women, largely wearing burqas, so with some of their faces covered, and said, Oh, it's great. It's great that they're going to be the optometrists and other health care workers of the future. To which, again, people replied, is it particularly championing of the sisterhood to be pointing out that these veiled women are not in the march that you are celebrating? So I made the point, OK, first they said that women could have penises. Now they're celebrating gender segregation. What has happened to the left wing feminist movement in 2026? Yes. And I think that's a fair point. To which you will get. To which you will get the face, the Stella Creasy face. Really? For those who can't see. Tim's whole face is screwed up. It's a face of progressive incredulity. Yes. I can't believe that you're not getting this. No. I can't. Really, Camilla? Can you not see that two plus two in a different context can equal five? That is precisely how she behaves. That is spot on. Yeah. But this is the left's problem, isn't it? It's got to balance these conflicting priorities. One is the priority of gender equality. The other is the priority of multiculturalism. Because there are some cultures that either totally reject gender equality or their understanding of gender looks less equal, let's put it that way, to our understanding of it. Now, she actually makes a perfectly good point, which is Muslim girls in this country are often highly educated. Yes, I agree. And that should be celebrated. Muslim women sit in the Iranian parliament. Yes. There's something of a misunderstanding here that all Islam suppresses female intelligence and character. Okay. And I totally agree with that. But it's culturally different. Their understanding of femininity. Yes. is different to ours. And that's demonstrated by the veil. But you cannot be a feminist, Tim, in one breath and then ask for people to celebrate a march that gender segregates women. I'm sorry. It's just absolutely preposterous. It's hypocritical. It's ridiculous. What isn't all women shortlist? Well, I know, but I don't support those either. And equally, yes, I take your point on Muslim women and girls. But we can also look at statistics which suggest that those coming here, those migrating here from Pakistan and Bangladesh, if they're female, are less likely than others to be educated, to be able to speak English, and to be gainfully employed. So I just don't want a situation where Estella Creasy or anybody else is asking us to sell or celebrate in what does appear to some to be the denigration of women, the holding back of women. And furthermore, Nigel Farage has come out in the last 24 hours suggesting that we ban face coverings, even though, as we discussed yesterday, some of those masked protesters would naturally be reform supporters if they're not restore supporters who are down in Dover enforcement. Oh, we don't know that. Well, they'd be on the right. I'm willing to bet they don't vote. Well, possibly not. Okay. But at least Nigel Farage is consistent. Sarah Pochin and others within his party are saying ban the burqa, which is face covering, and they're also saying ban the balaclava. We've got a situation now where Estella Creasy is supposedly, I assume, supporting the burqa because of the video she's just posted, but of course, absolutely not supporting protesters that might cover their faces with balaclavas or masks or anything else. Interesting. Well, I mean, do face masks for COVID count? Well, I thought face masks for COVID were absolutely ridiculous. Well, I agree, but we wouldn't. But it's not a full thing. It's not a full face covering, is it? I get it. But I think they're awful. They look like plague doctors. Yes. I don't know. Well, I had a manicure done and she wore a face mask on Saturday. Right. But she's not out and about in public. No. Okay. Fair enough. I don't think you have to be consistent. There's this strange idea in life that you need to be consistent. It's very Western. Other places don't do that. I'm uncomfortable with full face coverings. You can eat everything else, right? Okay. So you just have a cultural perspective, which is in this country. We do not require women to cover their face. No. Are you comfortable? We're very uncomfortable with any woman. Even if they say it is a matter of choice, there is a cultural prejudice in this country. against women covering their face. Sure. All I'm saying is. And there's nothing wrong. I just don't get why we don't just say that. I just understand why we have to make these intellectual somersaults of saying, well, because we don't want to feel bad about saying what I've just said, we're going to also cover balaclavas. By the way, I would jump immediately on a ban on wearing balaclavas in public. Because as a journalist, I've attended so many protests, left and right, where people wear balaclavas. And it is intimidating. And my point is, if you are exercising your right of free speech, and if you believe what you're saying, why do you hide your face? That's right. All I'm saying is I am as uncomfortable with burqas as I am with balaclavas. In this country, you should be free to say almost whatever you like, but you should be open that you're the person saying it. Also, one final point on the whole migrant thing. You know, you were saying yesterday about that anonymous source who gave. A story to The Times suggesting that just 1% of asylum claims are genuine. Funny enough, the UN has now doubled down on that claim somewhat by saying that asylum is given to migrants who aren't entitled to it. So it's interesting just to see that we now have a refugee agency, which is kind of surprising, confirming what that source said and saying, yes, the Home Office uses this kind of scripted interview system that prioritises speed over quality and, quotes, fails to probe material facts. So you've now got the. The UN saying that our system for identifying whether or not people should be claiming asylum is faulty. Well, two refugees who have been welcomed back into the country are Harry and Meghan, and we'll be discussing their relationship with the palace next. Timing is everything, Tim, as we discussed earlier with Andy Burnham. And now the timing of an intervention of sorts by the King to tell relevant authorities and now the press, because it's been released, that Harry and Meghan are absolutely not royal and they are not working royals. And let's not forget it now that they've arrived back in Blighty. They are private citizens. Now that seems to me insulting. It's insulting and rude, isn't it? Isn't it a bit like he's saying to the entire country, don't hire these people? Well, I don't know what he's saying to the entire country. Like a one. One star review. Possibly. It's saying that they absolutely do not have a formal role in the firm, which is nothing new. But let's speak to Vicky Ward, our Deputy Royal Editor, about this story. And shall we also say the timing is quite critical because that confirmation of their non-royal status comes ahead of a crucial meeting about their security. And also, it is four years today since Queen Elizabeth II passed away. Vicky, what's all this about? Well, it's so interesting. It's so interesting, isn't it? Because on the face of it, this letter sent on behalf of the King by the Lord Chamberlain is simply setting out what we already know. They're not working royals. They're not getting public funding. They're private citizens. There's nothing new in it. And it's everything that we were told in 2020 for the Sandringham Summit. Do you remember the Sandringham Summit? Yes, I do. I remember it well. This is basically setting out, the palace insists, setting out, they're just reiterating the terms of the Sandringham Summit and they're reminding people now that Harry and Meghan are back in the UK that nothing has changed and they're not going to be able to do anything else. But Harry and Meghan aren't very happy about it because they, well, firstly the timing. It's the timing that's really wild them, I think, because there's this, as you just mentioned, this meeting of RABEC this week, possibly as early as today. Let's just explain what RABEC is. What does it stand for? RABEC is the Home Office Committee. It's Royal and VIP Protection. Yes. Executive Protection, I think, something like that, committee. And they are meeting this week to discuss finally, it's what Harry's been after, for such a long time, their current risk, the current risk and threat against them and whether or not they should receive taxpayer-funded police protection. So this risk analysis was carried out in July, which we know about. The committee is now meeting today to discuss it or today or tomorrow to discuss it. So do they think that this letter kind of tries to make the committee a foregone conclusion because the King is hammering home this idea that they absolutely aren't fully-fledged royals and therefore why on earth should the taxpayer fund anything? That's the concern. I mean, got to be clear, the palace absolutely refutes this idea that there's any connection between these two things. The letter was going to be sent out anyway. The RABEC meeting was taking place. The two are not linked. But the Sussexes, and this shows the level of distrust, actually, between the two sides that has never dissipated. It's as high as it could be. The Sussexes fear that they could be putting into the public narrative this idea that they're private citizens and shouldn't have any funding just when RABEC, it's due to me to decide their security status. Right. So the palace and the Sussexes, are they communicating at this point? Because this sounds like the sort of thing that to me could have been ironed out privately. Still make the statement, but time it in a way that doesn't cause unnecessary offense. Well, this is part of, this is the other thing that's annoyed the Sussexes. They've said that they were really frustrated that they only got sight of this letter an hour before it was sent to the public. So it was sent to the Sussexes at two o'clock yesterday. Um, it was sent to us and the wider world at 3:00 PM. In the interim, the Sussexes weren't able to get a hold of Prince Harry to let him know that this was, this was happening and that it had been written. They asked if they could clarify a couple of things. They didn't like the term private citizens because they say, their argument is they're not really private citizens because they're public figures. They prefer the term public figures. Yes. He's still the King's son. They can't just pop to waitrose like normal private citizens. Yes. They're still senior members of the Royal, Royal family on a personal level. You say they can't pop to waitrose. There was that famous image once of Kate Middleton with a trolley. That's true. Of waitrose. What an image. There's a thousand reporters. I know. Yeah. All descending on it and having a look whether she'd put any Charlie Bingham's in a trolley, can't you home, make the lasagna. We were at a political conference at the weekend, Camilla, which for all its security, which would have been privately funded, someone managed to sneak in an automated banner to explode and erupt in what was supposed to be the middle of Nigel Farage's speech, but because of timing issues, it appeared during Richard Tice's speech. And I noticed they didn't whisk Richard Tice off the stage. If security thought it was a bomb threat, they just thought, oh, he can handle it. Yeah. My point is in an event that secure, it's easy. It's possible for someone to get in and do something like that. I think so. I can understand why Harry and Meghan are saying we really, really need to go up a level in our security. Well, do you know what? We're going to discuss the whole issue around their securities, particularly, especially. And kind of probe, how much are they paying for private security guards? What should happen with Ravik and all the rest of it, which is going to be released as a royalty later this week. So everybody look out for that. I take your point entirely. And I also think that even Harry and Meghan's harshest critics want them to be safe in this country, want them to be safe everywhere. I actually think that there's a bigger problem here for the palace, which they can't quite bring themselves to acknowledge. And it is this. I appreciate that the Sandringham summit. Under the watch of the late queen, God rest her soul today, wanted to come to a conclusion that would mean that Harry and Meghan couldn't be half in half out royals. They didn't want them to be able to cash in on their royal status, but deep down, we all knew that was unavoidable because everybody recognises Prince Harry as the son of the King and Princess Diana. He is a blood-born royal. Okay. He's married an American non-royal, but they are a royal family with a two children called prince and princess. And therefore, even if you might not be an official member of the firm, even if you might be a non-working royal, you are still intrinsically a royal. That was less of a problem in America where people are a bit confused about royalty and what does it mean? And let's be honest, they think that, you know, Tom Cruise is a form of royalty over there, at least the Scientologists do, whereas in Britain, there is no doubt about his royal status, regardless of whether he can use his HRH or not. And therefore, they're always going to be half in, half out. And it's become more prescient now because of things like rumours he might turn up at the Remembrance Service in November, which he could do, frankly, as an ex-veteran who served two tours of Afghanistan. He could do that. Meghan could go there in a big black hat. They might not be part of the official delegation, but they can do this stuff. They can pop up at charity events and they'll be viewed as royal/pseudo-royal. So they are half in, half out. And this is their problem. Now, this is what the palace is worried about, but the Sussexes equally are in a bit of a mess, aren't they? Because how does everybody, how are they going to approach it? And part of the issue, as you just alluded to, Tim, is that there's some of this could have been ironed out in advance, but we know the King was only given a few days notice that they were moving back at all. It's all happened really quickly because of the school place coming up. So no one, the two sides haven't sat down and maybe thrashed this out on some kind of slightly more informal way without releasing letters to the public and then starting to make statements in reaction. And it's all this is doing is fueling this tension, isn't it? And showing the public that there's still huge problems between these two camps that aren't going away. But then this is what happens. And this was Harry's criticism. I'm sure it irks them all to some extent. You're trying to manage family relations, but you're also trying to manage firm relations. So then rather than having a situation where a father and son would sit down over a cup of tea and a crustless cucumber sandwich and say, listen, look, we're back here. We're feeling. a bit unsafe, like what do you think we should do? And it all happening behind palace doors. You've then got aides and other people in grey suits or not intervening and they're trying to protect the institution from exploitation. And so it's difficult, isn't it? Because it's a professional operation, but it's also a very personal one. Yes. And sometimes there's crossover. And this is when Harry said, you know, when he wanted to leave the country and they had that spell out in Canada and he's trying to get to his dad, but he feels he's being blocked by, at the time, his father's private secretary. This is hard because ordinarily you'd just phone your mum and I'd just phone my dad. Yes, but I don't get to spend public money. No. That's the issue. So do you think public money should be spent on these two and protecting them or not? Oh, I personally do think so, yes, because they are public figures. They are almost certainly at risk and I don't see why not. But we don't spend public money on, say, the Beckhams. No, but that's partly because, and this is something this has brought to light, that being royal is not just a title. It's. It is actually about, dare I say, blood and about public perception and about being part of a family. And in turn, that heightens the risk, is Harry's argument. Yes. This bloodline, he was born into it. That is the risk. He can't escape that. Well, he heightened the risk because he bragged about killing many, many Taliban in his book Spare. There are things that he's, yes, there's factors throughout his life that have enhanced that risk for sure. But he never chose this path. Whereas, if you compare it to the Beckhams, they've chosen to be in the public eye. Yes. He never did. He was born into it. That's always been his argument. He was born into it. Whether he's a working royal or not, he doesn't make any difference. He has no choice. The risk is still there. They could retire and they can exercise some control over what people say and do about them. You can't really do that as a royal. I think there's a tension here between the modern royalty tries to see itself almost as a firm. Yes. Which is professional and is all about title. You're in it. You're outside. You're inside of it. It's a job. But the reality is it's like a medieval mystical institution. It is about chromosomes. He's part of it. He's never going to stop being part of it. And there is a feeling that the country owns him in some way, that he's part of our family too. And therefore, interest never goes away. He could have completely opted out. We did have that example in the Duchess of Kent, now deceased, Catherine Kent, who said to the late queen, I don't want a part of this anymore. I've done all of the trophy giving at Wimbledon. I just want to be a teacher up in Hull. And she was extricated from it. But I don't know who that is. No, I don't. Whereas Harry is the son of the current king. Yes, okay, okay. I just think it's a bigger deal. And he's Diana's son. Indeed. The tension with the family, the difference between the family and the institution, I think it's interesting that the Sussexes are kind of railing against this idea that they're not being recognised as senior members of the royal family and the king's, he's the king's son. But when you look back at the Sandringham Summit, interestingly, the queen, you'll remember this, released a statement with, they released all the terms, of the summit, and in her quote, the late queen said, Harry and Meghan and Archie remain much loved members of my family. And it's that personal, affectionate family element that's missing here, which may have riled the Sussexes because it's so formal and quite cold. Yes, but it's been that element of that statement that he has clung onto to dear life. So he's been very careful in interviews to say, I'm always going to be a member of that royal family. I'm always going to be a member of it. And by the way, the couple, although they haven't used their titles, have been very careful to kind of monogram everything. That Harry and Meghan cipher, H&M, with the crown on it, was on their doormat of their house in Montecito, which I imagine has made it into the Pickford's van and is currently at the front door of a Cotswolds property right now. So they do want the status, of course they do, and you could make an argument that the security is part and parcel of that because then it does send a clear message to the country and the world, that they are a cut above private citizens, public individuals, celebrity, that they do remain quasi-royals. One final question, because I know the letter's gone out from the Lord Chamberlain, which invokes Blackadder-ish images, doesn't it? A man in tights. Yes. Yes. Who is the Lord Chamberlain? He's the head of the royal household. So he's the most senior official. Does he wear tights? No. I'd like to think he does, but maybe on special occasions. And I'm wondering, final question, Vicky, has Prince William had anything to do with this? Well, we think that Prince William was supportive of the palace letter. Right. And I think that probably tells you all we need to know, doesn't it? Well, he's got other things to think about today because it's George's first day at Eton, first day at school. This is what royalty is all about. It's about measuring your own life in relation to them because I thought George is 13 already. Yes, I know. It's crazy, isn't it? He's so tall. Also, four years since the Queen died feels quite substantial, doesn't it? Yeah. It's quite a big day on many levels for the royal family, isn't it? And they'll be cross, actually, I imagine, that this debacle over the letter from the King in the Sussexes is now overshadowing George's arrival at Eton. Big day for him. Timing, timing, timing. And on that note, Tim, we'll be back tomorrow 5pm with Andy Burnham's second PMQs. We'll be right back.