The Royal Tea

Kevin O’Sullivan speaks to former BBC Royal Editor Michael Cole as the Prince Andrew investigation intensifies, with fresh allegations over misuse of public money and growing pressure on King Charles. Cole warns, “You couldn’t exaggerate the seriousness of the situation for the monarchy,” as calls for accountability and even treason questions fuel the deepening Royal Family crisis.Ian Collins then interviews royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams on the latest in the Prince Andrew misconduct in public office probe and fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein files. Calling it “a very serious crisis” and highlighting the “drip, drip, drip of allegations,” Fitzwilliams examines what this means for Prince William and the future of the monarchy as scrutiny continues.

Ian Collins speaks to royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams as the Prince Andrew arrest investigation deepens. With searches ongoing and questions mounting over alleged misconduct in public office, Fitzwilliams describes the situation as “a very serious crisis” for the Royal Family, warning of the “drip, drip, drip of allegations” linked to the Jeffrey Epstein files. Could further revelations emerge? What does this mean for King Charles and Prince William? And how high is the legal bar for prosecution? As scrutiny intensifies, the future of the monarchy is under fresh pressure.Later, Julia Hartley-Brewer is joined by commentator Benedict Spence to debate whether calls for a treason investigation go too far. Spence warns it is “very dangerous territory” and a “slippery slope,” while Julia insists “nobody in this country should be above the law.” As multiple police investigations continue and political tensions rise, the episode explores accountability, due process and whether Britain’s institutions are facing their biggest trust test in decades.

Julia Hartley-Brewer speaks to former Sun Royal Editor Charlie Rae about the deepening crisis surrounding Andrew and the wider implications for the monarchy. Rae admits the scandal is “clearly damaging” and overshadowing the Royal Family’s public work, with questions now stretching “all the way to the top.” He says the key issue may not be the alleged offences themselves but whether there was any attempt to conceal the truth: “It’s never the alleged crime – it’s always the cover-up.”Rae argues that while Andrew must face full investigation, the inquiry should ultimately go wider to establish “who knew what and when.” He does not believe the King or Prince William were involved in any cover-up, suggesting they may have been reassured by Andrew at the time. However, he accepts that an independent or parliamentary-style probe may eventually be needed once criminal investigations conclude. Above all, he stresses the importance of not losing sight of the trafficking allegations, saying that the plight of alleged victims is “much, much more important” than disputes over leaked emails or royal embarrassment.Later Julia speaks to royal commentator and historian Rafe Heydel-Mankoo about whether the Andrew scandal risks inflicting lasting damage on the monarchy. Heydel-Mankoo acknowledges a wider “disconnect between the British public and our institutions” and accepts that calls for transparency are justified. However, he argues that public anger is being aimed “squarely at Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor,” not at King Charles or Prince William, warning that some reactions – including talk of treason or removing Andrew from the line of succession – are “hysterical” and constitutionally unnecessary.

Samara Gill speaks to former head of Royal Protection Dai Davies, who brands the unfolding royal scandal “unprecedented” and constitutionally serious. Davies warns the “tentacles are far reaching”, stretching across government departments, police forces and palace officials, and says there appears to have been a “complete conspiracy of silence” lasting decades. He insists the focus must return to victims, arguing British authorities failed to act earlier despite serious allegations involving UK citizens.Davies questions why due diligence was not carried out on Andrew’s associates and travel, asking: “Where is the audit trail? Follow the money trail.” He says protection officers, diplomats and senior palace figures should all be examined, adding it “beggars belief” that nothing untoward was reported during overseas visits. He also raises concerns about potential national security implications, suggesting security services and ministers must answer what they knew and when.Turning to the King, Davies says it is “uncharted waters” and admits he feels sympathy given the monarch’s health, but stresses that neither the palace nor government can “hide from telling the truth.” If wrongdoing or concealment were proven, he says, consequences would have to follow “like everyone else in this sorry saga.” Asked whether Andrew could ever face prison, Davies replies bluntly: “Call me cynical – I doubt it.”

Jeremy Kyle speaks to royal biographer Angela Levin, who admits she briefly considered whether King Charles might have to abdicate to protect the monarchy, before changing her mind. Levin argues the country needs “someone who knows everything about the royal family” to calm the crisis, insisting Charles is steady and experienced enough to ride it out. While questions persist over the £12 million settlement and who knew what, she says it is unclear whether the King was aware and suggests the late Queen was “blinded by love” for Andrew and did not want to hear negative information in her final years.Levin is scathing about Andrew’s reported behaviour, saying she was “absolutely furious” to read he still expects to be called “sir”, branding him “a nasty piece” and warning the situation could worsen as more details emerge. She rejects claims that Prince William is manoeuvring for the throne, describing him instead as “very unhappy” and emotionally strained by his father’s and wife’s illnesses, but respectful of his father’s position.Jeremy also speaks to former Security Minister Tom Tugendhat about whether alleged misconduct involving Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and others could amount to treason. Tugendhat stresses that nothing has been proven but says the real issue is “betrayal” and the damage it does to public trust. He notes Britain’s treason laws are centuries old and not fit for modern cases involving leaked secrets or insider dealing, but argues the broader question is what betrayal of the country means today. While careful not to prejudice any investigation, he says the allegations represent a “very serious loss of confidence” and warns that trust in institutions – from the Royal Family to government departments – must be rebuilt if faith in the system is to survive.

Jeremy Kyles speaks to royal biographer Andrew Lownie, who says the crisis engulfing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has pushed the monarchy to the “last chance saloon”. Lownie, author of Entitled, says he feels vindicated after years of being “threatened, abused and laughed at” for exposing alleged corruption within the House of York. Now, as investigations widen, he argues this is no longer just about one disgraced royal but a “national security scandal” with potentially far more serious consequences than many realise.Lownie claims there were multiple moments over the past 15 years when decisive action could have been taken, but “too little too late” has left the institution in a dangerous position. He suggests King Charles is “compromised by his association with Andrew” and warns that if evidence shows the monarch knew more than he has admitted, “there may have to be some dramatic gesture” to preserve the Crown. In stark terms, Lownie says the King may ultimately need to “fall on his sword” to secure a reset under William and Catherine.Meanwhile, Jeremy and US royal commentator Kinsey Schofield clash over whether King Charles should consider stepping aside as the Andrew crisis deepens. Kyle says he senses “a shift” in public mood and warns the monarch may need to “start again with a clean slate” under William and Catherine. Schofield pushes back, insisting the Crown is “divinely ordained” and not dependent on “the choices of your little brother that no one can stand.” She stresses the King is constrained during an active investigation and cannot risk jeopardising proceedings, but concedes Parliament could move to remove Andrew from the line of succession. Both agree the monarchy faces a defining moment that will test public trust.

Mark Dolan speaks to Isabel Oakeshott after her explosive Mail on Sunday exclusive claiming that King Charles was warned as far back as 2019 about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s controversial business associations. Oakeshott says the “direction of travel” in this saga is now clear: the central question is “what did the most senior members of the royal family know, when did they know it, and what did they actually do about it?” Her report reveals that a whistleblower email alerted the Palace to Andrew’s financial links with the Rowland family, businessmen operating in what she described as “some extremely shady places” and “hostile regimes”.While stressing that the Rowlands were not accused of breaking laws, Oakeshott argues Andrew acted as a “door opener”, leveraging his role as UK trade envoy to grant access to global leaders and corporate chiefs. Crucially, she says the King’s office has not denied receiving the warning. “The buck ultimately stopping with the King,” she says, means the pressure now shifts to Charles to explain whether he took the concerns seriously or simply hoped the problem would “go away”.Oakeshott likens the wider culture around royal perks to the MPs’ expenses scandal, describing a long-standing sense of “entitlement” and limited accountability. She believes the fallout could trigger deeper scrutiny of royal finances, foreign links and lifestyle privileges. Though she admits feeling some sympathy for a monarch facing personal and health challenges, she says this is an institutional reckoning. Whether the Palace moves to “spin it” or opts for transparency, she warns, this scoop puts the spotlight firmly on the King and raises profound questions about the future direction of the monarchy.

Mark Dolan speaks to Charlotte Griffiths of the Mail on Sunday as the fallout from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest continues to grip the monarchy. Griffiths describes the now-infamous image of Andrew in the back of a car as “a journalist’s dream” that “summarises the whole story,” but warns that the national mood risks becoming “slightly medieval” as public anger turns into spectacle. While stressing that Andrew has been found guilty of no crime and denies wrongdoing, she says the real concern must remain with “alleged victims” rather than the embattled royal himself.Griffiths reveals that Sarah Ferguson is “in a very bad way,” calling her a potential “safeguarding risk” and suggesting the Duchess is struggling mentally amid the crisis. She also warns that Royal Lodge could still hold damaging material, noting that the ongoing police search may run for days and that “among that clutter and rubbish, there could be something really damaging.” With mountains of evidence already emerging from the Epstein files, she says the Palace would be wise to brace for further revelations.Turning to King Charles, Griffiths argues he should ultimately address the nation but only after police conclude key searches. She believes the monarch’s dominant emotion is likely “concern” rather than anger, describing him as “a real softy” who may feel sympathy for a brother she characterises as reckless and “not bright enough to make well-informed decisions.” As royal engagements are overshadowed and public trust wavers, this episode examines whether the monarchy can weather what Griffiths calls “the worst scandal to have ever happened to the monarchy” and how long this unprecedented royal crisis will dominate headlines.Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor denies any wrongdoing.