The Royal Tea

Julia Hartley-Brewer speaks to historian and royal author Andrew Lownie about fresh parliamentary moves to release documents relating to Prince Andrew’s 2001 appointment as UK trade envoy. As MPs table a motion to force publication of government papers, Lownie warns of “a huge, huge scandal” that goes beyond financial and sexual allegations and could amount to a “national security scandal.” He argues Andrew was “helped and abetted by a whole series of people” and calls for ambassadors, former UK Trade & Investment officials and senior figures to be questioned under oath about what they knew and when.The interview explores claims of a culture of “secrecy and deference” within the establishment, with Lownie suggesting senior figures, including the King, must have been aware of longstanding concerns about Andrew’s conduct. He calls for royal finances to face proper parliamentary scrutiny, unsealing of royal wills and removal of exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act. Questioning whether key documents will ever be released, Lownie predicts the issue could be delayed for years, warning that the establishment may seek to “kick this into the long grass” rather than allow full public accountability.Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor denies any wrongdoing.

Jeremy Kyle speaks to US royal commentator Kinsey Schofield about the escalating Prince Andrew scandal, fresh allegations over taxpayer-funded expenses during his time as UK trade envoy, and the growing pressure on King Charles. Discussing claims that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor charged personal massages to the public purse, Schofield remarks that he may have heard “public service and thought it meant the public service is him,” adding that he has “become a joke” amid what she calls “the worst crisis the monarchy has seen in my lifetime.” They also examine reports of a protest stunt at the Louvre, underlining the global reputational damage facing the Royal Family.The conversation explores mounting calls for accountability, transparency over royal finances, and whether Prince Andrew should be removed from the line of succession. Schofield explains that such a move would require new legislation and agreement across the Commonwealth, while Kyle argues public scrutiny of the monarchy is only intensifying. Despite the controversy, Schofield defends the constitutional monarchy as a vital source of political neutrality and soft power, warning that losing it could risk the kind of deep political polarisation seen in the United States.

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.

Meghan Markle’s latest alleged ultimatum to Prince Harry sets the tone for a royals-only first half-hour, as Kevin O’Sullivan, Samara Gill and Ash Gould tear into the fallout from Prince Andrew’s arrest and the widening Epstein shadow now hanging over the Yorks. Kevin claims Meghan has ordered Harry to cut ties with Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie as scrutiny intensifies around their past proximity to Epstein, with the panel stressing the sisters were “19 and 20” not “little girls” when they were taken to Epstein’s Florida mansion, and arguing the optics around money, travel and privilege are “not a good look”. Samara is blunt: “I’ve got no sympathy for them,” while Kevin says Meghan “spotted the problem” with the Yorks early and is now in full image control mode.Then the conversation detonates into breaking news: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, with Kevin calling it “the biggest story I’ve ever covered” and Samara warning the stakes are huge: “The maximum sentence for that is a lifetime of imprisonment.” As police search property and questions swirl about who knew what, from royal protection officers to palace insiders, Samara says “this wasn’t a one man show… an entire apparatus”, while Ash fears the crisis could snowball upwards: “Did the King know anything about it?” The trio repeatedly stress it’s allegations and no charges, but the theme is unmistakable: a monarchy facing a trust test, and a royal soap opera getting darker by the day.

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.