Dan Wootton Outspoken - HEATED CALLS FOR KING CHARLES TO ABDICATE & HAND PRINCE WILLIAM THRONE AFTER HUSH MONEY PAYMENT

Episode Date: March 13, 2026

Dan Wootton hosts a special edition of The Clash asking whether King Charles should abdicate with royal historian Rafe Heydel-Mankoo going head to head with the author Anna May Mangan. To watch the Uncancelled After Show for exclusive extra content EVERY weekday, sign up at: https://www.outspoken.live LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos every day: https://youtube.com/@danwoottonoutspoken?si=-2BhmEbBSN1fyESS?sub_confirmation=1 ---------- Find the full audio show wherever you get your podcasts: Apple — https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/dan-wootton-outspoken/id1762436723 Spotify — https://open.spotify.com/show/19Ltoneek2MSPL10CpSA1J?si=8f6d84e2db56448c ---------- Follow Dan on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@outspokendan Follow Dan on Twitter: https://x.com/danwootton Follow Dan on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/danwootton/ Follow Dan on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/danwootton/?hl=en #DanWootton #DanWoottonOutspoken #news #outspoken #uknews Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

No spin, no bias, no censorship. I'm Dan Wooden. This is a special edition of Outspoken. As you know, one of my favorite features on my former show at Gb News was The Clash, and we have brought it back this week for a special run of shows where we debate the biggest issues in the world. Today, should King Charles abdicate to make way for William and Catherine to save the monarchy? joining me, Royal Historian, Raph Hidal Manku, and author Anna Mae Mangan to clash it out. Now, remember, there is no Greatest Brician or Union Jackass this week because of our special edition of The Clash, but the Royal Uncanceled After Show continues as normal on Substack. That is after the main show, and you can join us there at www.outspoken.live. But now, let's go.

The British monarchy, the most famous royal family in global history, is in genuine peril after the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, and claims that King Charles helped pay £12 million in hush money to his brother's accuser, Virginia Dufray. So a question that many would have thought was unbelievable just a few months ago is now seriously being asked, including behind the scenes at Buckingham Palace. So what do you think? Should King Charles abdicate to make way for William and Catherine and to save this great institution, just like you could argue the abdication of Edward the 8th did so 90 years ago? to clash today, royal historian, Rafe Hidal Mancu. He's a traditionalist who says absolutely not. But today he goes head to head with the author Anna Mae Mangon who believes that Charles should go. So great to have you both here.

We're going to kick off with a minute for you each to put your case. Rafe, get going. Why should Charles stay? Well, the question you've posed is that the monarchy needs saving. and I'm afraid there's no evidence for it for that. It's undeniable this is a great crisis for the monarchy, as big or bigger than Diana, 97 dying, as big as the 36 abdication crisis.

But the polling shows that only a small minority actually want the monarchy to be abolished. They understand that you can't have institutional responsibility in the person of the king for the actions of his brother, and they quite rightly put place the blame firmly on Andrew's shoulders rather than on the king. And an abdication is completely foreign

to our constitution. There is no role for it in our system of government. We had it once in 1936. That wasn't an act of damage control. That was an act of huge volatility for the monarchy and for the constitution and for the nation. So the idea that you're going to stabilize the monarchy by having an abdication is just wrong. You're actually going to destabilize it further and make it far more, far less of the important role that it plays now as a symbol of stability and continuity. Okay, Ralph, time is up. We will continue as we go. Hey, Mangad. Why is he wrong? You've got a minute. Right. I've got every respect for your knowledge and your historical knowledge.

But I would approach this as a subject and as a woman who has children of her own. Now, if one of my kids came to me and bear in mind, I'm in very reduced circumstances compared to the royal family and said, mum, can I have 12,000 pounds? Would I then write a check without saying, what for? Why? What have you done? Discussing it with other members of the family. So they're all tainted by this now because I believe that that 12 million pounds didn't come from one person. I think that they collected the money and that that alone is a reason for investigating them. And the whole point of the monarchy has changed.

I think what they fear now most is the indifference of people. And that's what people are. Not everybody, you're right, feels that they should be abolished or what's the word, he should abdicate. But the majority of people don't really care and they're put off even more by his silence and what he's doing.

So I think he needs to understand. that he has to modernise, he has to be more transparent, and he needs to speak to people. I mean, this business has just saying I've handed him over to the police. They are, wash my hands. I'm finished now. That doesn't work. It doesn't wash for people.

Time is up. Rave, look at the cover of the new statesman magazine, the crumbling house of Windsor. Now, yes, you can say that is a left-wing publication, but all of a sudden conversations are being had in this country that would have been unthinkable just a matter of weeks ago. Isn't the point that Edward VIII's abdication actually was allowed to usher in the second Elizabethan era?

We have two people, the most popular members of the Royal Family Rafe, Prince William and Catherine the Princess of Wales, sitting there ready to go, and they have nothing to do with this hush money that Anna Mangon talks about, why would you not want them on the throne? Because they will come to the throne in due course. Yes, you're quite right.

They are the greatest assets to the monarchy and the time will come when they will come to the throne. The king is not a young man, obviously. But we don't have a system where we dictate who takes the throne by popularity, by politics, and certainly not by the media and who decides we have a constitutional process that must be followed.

Yes, the monarchy does thrive on public consent, But as I've said, only a small minority believe the monarchy would be abolished, thereby showing that the king remaining is not damaging the institution. And in fact, the overwhelming majority of the British public believe the monarchy will still be there in 10 years and will still be there in 20 years. So this is not an existential crisis for the future of the monarchy, although it is hugely damaging. And as I say, the king has nothing to abdicate for, nothing to apologize for. He took his brother's words on faith.

And a lot of this has been conducted in hindsight. There are things we know now that no one knew. Not even the MI5 and the Secret Services knew the things that came out of those Epstein files. At the time, there were questions around Virginia Dufray. At the time of this happened, people didn't know whether she was real or not, whether she was telling the real story or not. And there was an expectation that Andrew was acting honorably. Because she had lied about Alan Dershowitz.

And so there was a belief in an understanding. Benefit of the doubt was given to Andrew, and he behaved disgracefully by misleading his own family on this issue. this happened at the time of the platinum jubilee and there was a great deal of concern that this was going to overshadow what should be the pinnacle for the monarchy the first time in history

of sovereign had been on the throne for 70 years and they wanted that story to go away so that given all of that and the lack of knowledge that we have now is quite understandable why they would just want this issue to go away because they thought it would be a one-off they didn't realize the floodgates that would open later right

let's just be honest about this right let's lay our cards on the table people like you just want to bring down the British Royal Family and you're using this, the lefties are using this instance to try and do so. And actually, that is destabilising. It's almost British hatred. I think that Prince Charles and the position he's in at the moment, he's like the King Charles, thank you. I'm sorry, King Charles and behind the times. I think that he is the Kirstama of the Royal Family. He's got no direction.

He's not believing, he doesn't believe in anything. I mean, I know when he was younger. That's the most defensive thing you could ever say. I believe when he was younger, he was interested in green issues and architectural issues. But what now? I mean, what is he doing now, apart from firefighting for his brother? And this business that he didn't know and it was that he realised it was worse than he really. No.

I mean, if you'd gone to the chambermaid in the palace where apparently Andrew was bringing these girls in, they could have told you, the people who were washing the sheets, could have told you that there was a lot of action going on in that room. His private police officers must have known. It's this lack that they're completely. complain about the media, but the media have expectations, as do the public, about what they're doing in return for the money that they get. And I think the queen, she says she was faultless, although I think she died in the nick of time, because there are questions about whether

she knew what was going on with Andrew, and did she hand the money over out of blind love or fear or nerves, I don't know. But I'm glad that a woman of her age and who served so diligently is spared this debacle that's going on now. And yeah, so I think people definitely know. So you blame Charles not the late Queen. I blame. I think what Charles has done, but as I say,

passing it over to the police and then saying nothing to do with me and it literally is because he can't, even if he was complicit in some way, he can't be prosecuted. Are they offering up, Andrew? I don't know. But I think it's such a bad look.

This is not able to be cleaned up. It's too extensive. There's too much talk now. And worse, indifference of the public to the monarchy is serious, sneering at them, which is what's happening now, look at the photograph of him in the back of the car. I mean, while there is an element of, oh gosh, isn't that marvelous to see him brought down like that, it's actually cruel and it's not publicly. It should have been dealt with quicker, better, and he should have communicated.

Charles should have communicated to the public about how this was being handled. But we still don't know. We know nothing. Well, you have had greater transparency from the monarchy. I mean, this is the thing about the king. He has made great strides towards transparency. Those two last statements were unprecedented to actually, firstly, to address his brother as Mr. Andrew Mountbatten-Winzer.

We had never seen that prefix Mr. being used before. That was a clear sign. This is a private citizen. He must not have any fear or favor in front of the law, must be judged correctly and given over to the police. And he expressed his huge concern over that. We know how outraged Queen Camilla is on this, because of course sexual violence and oppression of women

and coercive behaviour are so central to her charitable endeavours. And it's hard to think what more the king could have done. I mean, he's stripped him of all his titles. He has banished him from Royal Service. He's been basically sent to Coventry, essentially by going into cold, windswept Norfolk, where everyone thought he would live out the rest of his days in silence. And then, of course, we had the release of even more Epstein files.

The king has done all he possibly could to punish his brother. Yeah, I mean, you're enjoying this, aren't you, Anna, Matt? You were like, oh, look at that photo. And there is something quite grim about this. It's like you are enjoying. No, but you also said that you looked at that photo and you sort of loved it. There was something that loved it.

And isn't this the worst type of celebration that we're seen? Like, why are we celebrating the downfall of this man who was a war hero? He's pretty vile because he's handled his public, because he took the public for idiots. I mean, I think that's his biggest, well, of course, against the women is the worst, but it's a big crime the way he's treated the public. And you talk about Prince Charles.

What has he done really? He's taken his brother and taken him out of a very big Tesco-esque mansion and put him in a smaller house with all his expenses paid. Andrew is like a hot air balloon. He's up there with no visible means of support. I mean, how is he paying for his lifestyle? They took his horse. away. You know, really. I think nobody has had a bigger humiliation than Prince Andrew

and no one's got any pity for him. And no one hasn't. And neither should they. Pride comes before or fall. I'm not going to defend the man. But what more could the king actually do? What do you want Anna? Do you want him in a council house? You do, don't you? A flat would be nice. And he's also got three members of staff. He's still got and he insists that they call him sir. Even now. That was reported last week. I mean, it's a scandal. It's scandalous. You want to. You want his head on a state, don't you? I want him to pay. I want him to pay for what he's destroyed. I want him to pay for what he did and for him to respect the public that put up with his

antics for so long, not just his sexual deviances and the way he treated underage women. I mean, that's absolutely shocking and criminal. But the way he treated staff. Which he denied? I mean, I've read the Andrew Lammar. Yeah. Well, of course he's going to deny it. He sat on news night and lied until he was blue in the face.

Okay, but so you don't seem to want to believe in due process, though. Oh no, he's got to be, he must be processed. In fact, I'll tell you while I'll be happy when he's found guilty. And I think he will be found guilty. There's so much evidence. But I agree with you. But that's not why the king should abdicate. Yes, by all means, fire your broadsides against Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor.

I would say he's fully deserving, even though, of course, he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law. There has to be remembered. And actually, the reason he is in Sandringham right now, my understanding is because the king is trying to keep him there because Andrew would much more happily go off to the Middle East. He's got a palace waiting from him in Abu Dhabi. They don't care about any of this.

He would still have access to women in the Middle East and he's got to, you know, warm climates there as opposed to living in Norfolk in the winter. But the king wants to ensure that if the law does need to take him down, the law will be able to do that, which you wouldn't be able to necessarily in the Middle East. So again, the king is trying to do the right thing and yet again he's being pilloried for it.

But there's an ulterior motive here, isn't there? Anna. Let's be honest about it. Anna, there is. Because you would like to see the destabilisation of the British monarchy because deep down the leftists want it to be destroyed. I think you've got the wrong person because I'm not anti-monicists. I'm anti- the way that Charles has dealt with this. He's an old man. He's a sick man.

He's a man who appears to be out of ideas. He's a man who's got his ears and eyes covered over this issue and how. has done for many years. I mean, this hasn't happened in the last six months, has it? I mean, he must have, when was it, was it 20, 22 that the 12 million check, if it was 12 million, telegraphs, as it was, was written. So he has planned this. I mean, he's got, do you know why I don't understand about any of the Royals?

They've got not so much Kate and William, but look at Megan and Harry and Prince Charles, they must have access to the best of PR, the best ideas, the best people, because for the kudos of working with them. And yet they've made a pig's ear out of all their public utterances. They never do it right. So that puzzles me. That really puzzles me.

But Charles is at the end of the road for a variety of reasons. And I'm not an anti-monicist and I'm actually not that left. I think you've made a mistake about that. But I do feel that the public are looking past Charles already. They're looking for what comes next.

You've got to admit. I mean, come on. I've debated you many times. And what you do have to admit is that there is an aim by the left in the United Kingdom to destabilise us by bringing down the monarchy. You have to admit that. And the abdication of King Charles would play into their hands because all of a sudden you would be treating our brilliant hereditary monarchy,

which has been such a centrepiece of our country for such a long time, as just another political game. It's like this isn't a game. You can get rid of Stama. Have your fun there. Leave our king alone. That's a bit dramatic. We're responding to their behaviour.

It's not like we've got a nod to the door. I mean, they're behaving like they're in downtown abbey here. Like, I'm not telling you anything. We're very grand. Like, stay away no matter what we do. They're paying the price now for them looking the other way for too long. And also, we're not talking about like a, a small fraud or something of that nature.

This is disgraceful the way they treated these women and the way that they stood up for Andrew and the way that they took so long to deal with him. So I'm not asking to destabiline the monarchy. I have a lot of respect for the Queen and I think that William and Kate will do a very good job because they seem wedded to duty. That's what the public expect.

They expect in return for the palaces, in return for the privileges, They want a sense of duty. They want to see them serving the public. And at the moment, this mess is just distracting from that. And there's a lot of very good causes that the Royal Family work for that aren't even getting mentioned at the moment. But we do actually know where the public is on this.

And the public don't think that the king should abdicate. The public, you know, believe that only a small minority of the public actually are opposed to having a monarchy in this country as well as all of that. And actually, Dan, you made the point I was just going to make next. You may not want to destabilize the monarchy, but you will destabilize the monarchy by you. doing this. It's not a political office. You can get rid of a prime minister or a cabinet minister if you want to. But if you believe in constitutional monarchy, you have to believe in the right

of hereditary succession and the constitution that comes with that. And, you know, the monarchy is one of the few things in public life today that grounds us. It provides us with stability and continuity when everything else seems to be going to hell in a handbasket. And just at a time when we have the most weak and feeble prime minister, we have complete question marks hanging over his future. We've got, you know, the rise of Green Party and reform. politics has never been in more disarray. We don't know whether there'll be the possibility of having a majority government in the future.

This is just a time when you need somebody, a stable figure in the person of the monarch, who's above politics, who can provide that comfort to the nation. And sometimes you have a monarch who's not great. Okay, like, I'm not sitting here comparing King Charles III to Queen Elizabeth II. I think, Raff, and I know that you're very kind to Al-King, but I think when the history books are written, this probably isn't going to be a reign that you want to talk about and you want to remember.

But at the end of the day, we just need to let time play out. That's how our system of hereditary monarchy works. And actually, you're trying to punish a man who is literally, you know, I'm going to say it. And again, Raph will be horrified that I'm going to say. this, but he is dying of terminal cancer and you're trying to punish him. You're trying to take away a job that actually he waited his entire life for. Just give the man his couple of years on the throne. He wasn't down a coal mine while he was waiting, was he? I mean, he had a very pampered,

privileged lifestyle, a lot of influence, a lot of opportunities to do what he wanted. So, I mean, it's not boo-hoo about his weight. I mean, there's a good thing that his mother who was exemplary at the job was in it for so long. And actually, you're wrong that I just want to get rid of him for the sake of getting rid of him because my biggest fear is President Sadiq Khan. I mean, how would that work out? I mean, that's a possibility, isn't it?

But it's not... President Gary Lineca, President Tony Blair. Yeah, yeah. So you're wrong. I mean, I actually have a space for the monarchy, but they have to modernise, they have to have a particular function that people respond to and respect.

You see, what's happened is that this whole thing has washed out over everybody around them and it has taken away the sense of respect that we have, which coupled with intrusive media, has really sort of like made them more of an EastEnders, like an East Enders episode than the Royal Family. It down valued them. And I don't like to see that.

And that's why I would like to see a change. You're right, he's ill. I mean, I think it's pretty obvious he's ill. So that's another reason for him bowing out of this almighty, unholy mess. Could he use that, though, in all seriousness? Like, this is not a guy who is operating. in the way that you would like a monarch to act.

And that is because of his health. He's still undergoing this regular cancer treatment. Could he not use his health as a respectful way to abdicate? Not at this stage, certainly not. Look, the fact says we should have every sympathy for him that the man is being so stoic in the face of all of this. Not only the cancer treatment, the son and his brother. He is still performing his duties.

You said, he's not doing anything else, but firefighting. The great problem is he is doing so much other stuff, which is overshadowed by this. It's not getting any coverage. Look, we have a very different monarchy to everywhere else in Europe and the world. We don't have abdication. The king was crowned in a Christian ceremony, like his mother. He regards this as a sacrament. It's like becoming a priest. And these are vows that he took, a covenant with the nation. These are bound, these are promises he's made for life. So he doesn't think that he can just step away from this role. And let me just also explain, you You said that he were quite dismissive about his past 50-odd years.

This was a man, we could have had a playboy prince on the casinos of Monaco and Montecale for the last few decades. You may agree or disagree with his stance on interfaith dialogue, on the environment and other things. But if you look at what he did, homelessness, working with the poor of this country and the youth of this country and everything else, this is a man who, whatever your politics lies, you can't deny. He passionately believes in this country, in the people of this country, and he has dedicated

himself for decades. to improving the lot of people in this country, architecture, everything that you can think about. And you want to take that away from him, Anna Mae. So why didn't he control his brother, his wayward brother, if he was so influential and clever and powerful? Well, how can you do that? By the deal, nipping it in the bud.

If you've got a toddler, you don't let them keep throwing, I don't know, yoghurt at the wall, you stop them doing it. And why didn't he intervene earlier? The monarchy is bigger than this single issue. And I think time will tell, you know, we're in the heat of the fire. I think in a few weeks, months, whatever it's going to take, we'll be looking at this in a very different way. The problem is, Ray, this isn't like 1997,

where the late Queen Elizabeth II was able to take a little bit of advice from Alistair Campbell and Tony Blair and go and deliver that speech to the nation from Buckingham Palace, which, let's be honest, she didn't want to do, you know, she didn't want to be sane as a queen and as a grandmother, but she did it because she was able to take advice.

Because there is a process here, a process that is spirally, this could be reputational damage to the monarchy that lasts for months and years. Yes, and of course we'll have to see how that plays out. But look, the beauty of the monarchy, the reason why the British monarchy has survived, whereas it's collapsed throughout Europe and elsewhere,

is because the monarchy has modernised and adapted. Okay, but, Rae, we are talking, though, about a situation. We've got to get real about the reality of what we are facing. And I want to put a scenario to you, and I know we're not there yet, but let's just imagine this scenario. Andrew is charged with a crime. That is a possibility. He's been investigated by 10 police forces he's been arrested.

He is charged with a crime. As part of his defense, because he doesn't plead guilty, because why would he plead guilty? That would mean a certainty of a prison term. He's not pleading guilty to save his brother. I don't believe that. So he pleads not guilty and fights this issue. in court. And as part of that case, there's a whole load of things that could come up about

King Charles, including the fact that 1.5 million pounds of his money was used in this 12 million pound payoff to Virginia due freight. So he did know about it in some way. And this is his court. This is the King's court. How can he stay on the throne in a scenario like that? Even, constitutionally, let alone reputational. Yeah, well, first of all, that's a hypothetical. We have no idea how things are... It's possible. It's possible. But I would also hope that, you know,

Andrew was willing to lay down his life for Queen and Country in the Falklands War. I would hope if he has one shred of decency left, he'd be willing to lay down... A plead guilty to jail and safe child. Because one thing that the royal family do understand, is that the monarchy is bigger than them, and I would hope that he would realize at that point that he does need to take a stand.

He doesn't want to be the prince who actually led to the huge institutional damage. I wouldn't say downfall because as I said, I don't think the British public are there. But I've already explained that the king took his brother on his word. There were questions about Virginia Dufre. This was a, they didn't believe that there was a huge floodgate about to open. We're talking about all of this from hindsight. I think the British public would understand. Also, we had the platinum jubilee that had to go off without any cloud overhanging it. I think we've already dealt with that. I don't think actually it will be as dire a situation as you are. But, but, but

That's morally justifying paying the money. Okay, now that's a reputational question, but I'm talking about the constitutional question. I mean, look at the Paul Burrell trial, which collapsed. And that collapsed because Paul Burrell said, well, I need to call the late queen. And the queen knew she couldn't be giving evidence in her own court.

Well, the king wouldn't give evidence either, but he could have his age would give court, advice on his, would give a testimony on his advice. But the point is, of course, the king is not going to collapse over this. I mean, it's not an issue. This would be hugely embarrassing for the monarchy. No one's saying that this wouldn't be a damaging scenario.

It wouldn't lead to a decline in support for his role as king, perhaps as well. But that's a far, far leap to say that that's actually grounds for abdication or that it would lead to the need to save the monarchy, which is the issue we're debating. The monarchy doesn't need saving. It just needs to get through this. the monarchy has weathered so many storms in the past.

The monarchy has weathered so many storms. Get through it. Get through it. Underage girls, illicit sex. Well, it's not the king who was involved in all of that. It was his brother who's not a working royal, who has no role to play within the monarchy. No. He has been penalised and punished every way imaginable by the monarchy.

Sorry. Sorry. Has he been locked in a cupboard then for the last 15 years? Does he not know what's going on? If the protection officers know what's going on, If the palist staff know what's going on, if his mother knew what was going on, if Fergie knew and the daughter knew what was going on. Charles is the only person.

What was you in headphones in a cupboard? The queen was 96, you know, when she died. I don't know what she was capable of writing a big fat check, wasn't she? Well, I don't know whether she was actually. She was in her 90s and I think, you know, it's suffering from terminal cancer. Yeah, it's a big stretch to think. I mean, you say you love the queen. I doubt.

I respect the queen. Come on. Come on. Well, what you're doing right now is trying to destroy. her legacy. And I can't stand for that anime. I am not doing that. Well, you're just saying she wrote a big fat check. Yeah, she did. And so what you're suggesting

is that the late queens did something wrong. There was no suggestion that she wasn't compesementous at the time of her death. In fact, she welcomed Liz Truss to the palace. Was it days before her day? I was doing her duty. But the idea that a woman in her late 90s is over all the details of everything was being briefed all the time.

There was effectively... This is just proving a 12 million pound check. This is just proving they are on another planet from us? Oh yes, yes. And also that check, it points to all sorts of other problems. We don't know, we can't see their wills. They're all put away in a vault, aren't they?

We don't see, they don't pay inheritance tax. They pay selective taxes on other things. We don't know what their finances are. We don't know what they're up to. And they're kind of like governing us in a, obviously not in a political way, a non-political way. But they're like leading a charge with a country culturally, I think, in a lot of senses.

So why don't we know more about them? Why aren't they more transparent? And this has blown it all up now. So now it's time. It will never go back in the box now. I'm not arguing with you on that issue. That's another discussion entirely about greater transparency in the monarchy.

We can have a debate about that. I think there are the era of never complain, never explainers out of the window, particularly in this case, because it's not justifiable any longer. But that's a different debate as to whether the king should abdicate. Totally. But I am just going to say,

very clearly here that I do not, and actually, weirdly, Anna Mae, you're going with the King's argument because what the King's courtiers are trying to do is blame it on Queen Elizabeth the Second. She's not here. She's not here to defend herself. And I think it's despicable and disgusting. And I think Rafe is completely correct to point out the fact that by the time the settlement was reached, the late Queen was suffering from bone and blood cancer, which we didn't report at the time. she was absolutely focused on her duty. But you have to remember, she would spend weeks, weeks to just get herself ready for one engagement.

I remember when she opened the Elizabeth line. Do you remember that at Paddington Station just before the Jubilee? And no one had expected her to be there. I'd actually bumped into one of her friends on the street just near the palace who had said to me she had been undergoing blood. transfusions. You know, the lady in waiting put it in quite a funny way, actually. You know, she's getting young people's blood pumped into her. That was the gesture, because she was so determined for duty. Now, to suggest that she could be across, I mean, this legal document,

the settlement with Virginia Dufray, my understanding is that it ran to hundreds of pages. The idea that the late queen was at all involved in that settlement, Charles was effectively running the monarchy at that point. So again, I don't really agree with either of you on this. Well, there you are then. Because I'm also not agreeing with Rafe in terms of the fact that the king had nothing to do with that settlement. But I just feel like trying to throw the late Queen Elizabeth the second under the bus over this is wrong. I'm certainly not doing that.

But I think that if you're a parent, and I don't know if either of you are, that a wayward child doesn't present you in his 50s. I mean, you would know. And according to the Andrew Lally book, which I found very well researched. Entitled. Yes. he talked about lots of episodes where the Queen bailed him out over the years

I mean I don't know if you're if you've read it you're familiar with that look the Queen the late Queen Elizabeth the 2nd believed in Andrew's innocence I reported I mean it's become quite infamous actually but I reported and was the first report that the morning after remember Andrew's Newsnight interview he had gone to church

with the late Queen at Windsor and he told her went swimmingly and everything's going to be okay. And she believed Andrew and she allowed Andrew to usher in to the memorial service for the late Prince Philip. But, but a mother's love for her son, I think is very different to a cold hard reality check in terms of what he was actually doing. And I don't think there was any way that she could know. But look, as the crisis for the British royal family deepens after the release of the Epstein files,

there is another big question. Should Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, the disgraced former Duke, and his daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, who I have to be honest, are now implicated in this scandal too. I know a lot of you feel sorry for them, but they didn't play this correctly in my opinion. should they be removed from the line of succession. So the clash continues now with royal historian, Rief Hedel Mancou,

and the author Anna May Mangon. Anna, let's start with you this time. One minute. Why should Andrew Beatrice and Eugenie be removed from the line of succession? Well, it's obvious why Andrew should be removed because he's been, he's under criminal investigation. It sounds as though he was in. in cahoots with passing over sensitive information about the country.

So, I mean, in my opinion, that's a form of treason. So what he has no place in the line of succession. I mean, the worrying thing is, I mean, look at all the bombs that have been going off. We really are. We have to be careful because there's not a lot of them now. And he's dangerously close to the high up in the line of succession. His daughters, I think they have travelled with him a lot on business trips, particularly to the ones in the Middle East.

They've also been present a lot of the pictures in the palace. And I think that they have grown, developed a little black book as a result of Andrew's connections, which are not always savoury, wholesome. And if they were out there. There's your minute. We'll continue this conversation. Rave, why should Andrew Eugenie and Betra's stay in the line of succession? your minute starts now. I find this such a remarkable and ridiculous thing to be discussing.

He is eighth in line to the throne. The chances of him becoming king are as remote as the person who's one thousandth in line to the throne. I mean, never in history as anyone who's even fourth in line to the throne, but been realistically expected to become king of this country. This is not an issue of morality. This is an issue of the constitution and of the institution of the monarchy. This is decided by law. It goes back to 1701, the descendants of the electrosophira of Hanover, the line of succession is huge. It covers thousands of people, including people who are Catholics and others as well.

You can't just tamper and do away with the principle of hereditary succession. If you believe in the monarchy, you believe in the principle of hereditary succession. I would also say, even if it was closer to the throne, like Prince Harry, I don't think he should be removed

from the line of succession. Again, there's no chance in hell that anyone's going to become, but it would open a huge can of words constitutionally, globally around the Commonwealth realm. So you will be basically doing something which has no real value

with the potential risk of leading to republics around the Commonwealth. Okay, times up. Anna, mate, look, the point that Rafe is making here is that people like you are using this to try and effectively undermine the monarchy because of course, if you take individuals, right, like, yeah, you don't want Andrew there,

but you don't want Harry there either. But actually, well, she's not in the line of succession, thank God, because she's not a blood rule. They've been married until he dumped her recently. They've been together. But of course, you've got to be a blood royal to be in the line of succession. But, but that's not the point. It is our system.

And so you've just got to accept that's the way a hereditary monarchy works. And a hereditary monarchy is a good thing. There's more the one way for a monarchy to look, though. I mean, there's a place in Malaysia. I'm not sure where, or exactly where. But there's a monarchy there, and they get elected every five years. I mean, I'm not suggesting that we do that. There are eight monarchies in Malaysia and they all rotate.

It doesn't know whether you want to have more kings than there are currently. My point is that there's more than one way of doing this. And we shouldn't accept, just like we wouldn't accept a bankrupt and emotionally, morally bankrupt political system. Why should we accept the royals in that condition? I mean, they've been disgraced. Everyone's been laughing at Andrew and Fergie for years, haven't they really? The profligate spending, all the things that she was up to. the lack of money, the fake shake selling access to the royals.

I mean, we've been watching that in the Sunday papers for years and thinking, oh, well, yeah, they're not too, you know, let's put up with it. It's not too bad. But actually, it's gone on now. And now we're talking about sexual exploitation. It is bad. And it is irrevocable. And something's got to change.

And I think Charles has managed to deal with it in a way that he hasn't actually addressed it. He's talking about it without addressing it. And Beatrice and Eugény, in my opinion, are at the heart of this. one of them is in business she does a lot of business in Dubai which is where her parents will probably end up and they made those connections

on trips like taxpayer-funded trips abroad with him. Yeah I mean Rafe we do have to have a conversation about these two princesses right because they do retain these titles Rafe and for a long time people have been saying oh poor Beatrice and Eugenie

and I sort of got it but I never really felt that way because I'd seen these two on the scene. And I think, unfortunately, they did pick up some of the terrible habits of their parents. But for me, Rave, where the line was crossed, unfortunately, was the meeting with Jeffrey Epstein just four days after his release from prison. He had been in prison. Now, you can talk about it however you want, but he had been in prison. In Florida, okay, it was a very soft sentence, but for child sex trafficking. And I was thinking about it from my scenario.

And remember, I'm not a member of the royal family, right? My mum and dad, who I adore and who I trust 100% to never put me in a terrible situation. They said to me, oh, dad, we're going to meet my friend Jeffrey Epstein. Oh, mom and dad, okay, great. Where's he been for the last 18 months? Oh, he's been in prison. What for? Child sex trafficking.

You know, the first thing I'm doing, I'm going on Google. I'm researching this guy and I'm saying to my mum and dad, mum and dad, I love you, but I'm just not coming. I just have zero interest in seeing this guy. And actually, I'm a princess, so I'm definitely not going to put the royal family at risk.

And they were 19 and 21 years old. These were not young children, Rafe. I'm sorry, does that meeting alone make it completely inappropriate that one day they could take the throne? Well, one day they're never going to take the throne. But they could. They couldn't.

We don't live in a world where King Ralph the movie was a reality, or kind hearts and coronets is going to happen, where the entire rule, I mean, for heaven's sake, Prince George and Prince William don't fly in the same plane now that he's 12 years of age in order to ensure that the succession line doesn't get to whittled down. The odd helicopter, though, which...

I'm not here to defend Andrew. I'm not here to defend Princess Beatrice and Eugenie by any stretch of the imagination, although I would say, you just said, that they trusted their parents 100%. But you're assuming that they asked their parents who's what Jeffrey Epstein's background was, where he'd been the last 18 months.

Maybe they didn't ask. When I was 19, I wouldn't be asking this. But she's 21 years old. 19 and 21, I wouldn't be asking those questions. I get to probably take him by my parents to see umpteen people in a week. So we don't know whether that conversation was happened. There are accusations that have been made

and have been alleged. I've not seen strong evidence to point to anything at this stage. If it comes, let it come. But that doesn't look. The line of succession is not a popularity. concept, contest, it rests upon the Constitution, the Act of Settlement, and the 1301 and the 2013 succession to the Crown Act. And let's be clear here, you cannot just act unilaterally in this country to change the line

of succession. If you want to change the line of succession under the statute of Westminster in 1931, you need to consult all the realms. There are 40 other realms. Do it. Canada, Australia, New Zealand would have to pass their own legislation. Countries in the Caribbean would need to formally consent. They want it.

And if they want Andrew. Well, there are four. You need to have unanimity. You need to have all 14 do this. That's going to open up a can of worms. There are Republicans around the Caribbean and elsewhere who are dying for this to happen so they can reignite this debate

and say, well, if we're going to discuss this, let's do away with the monarchy. I can see Jamaica leaving the Commonwealth over this. Also, we know that the Caribbean nations want to have reparations. They want British taxpayers to pay trillions of pounds for slavery and colonialism. They could say, well, we're not going to consent.

We're not going to give you unanimity if you don't pay us reparations. So for a pointless symbolic gesture of removing these people who will never become king and queen, you're risking the future of the monarchy in the Commonwealth and potentially putting British taxpayers on the line. So let's give them all power. They're insane, the perverted, the stupid, the criminal. Let's bring them all in and put them in the line of succession. Well, they are already in there.

We're not adding criminals in, we're just basically. Thank you for making my point for me. So what you're suggesting is because it's too much trouble and because it's written in the history books, we should go under a big rock and let them all do what they like. Of course not. You can't just pick and choose who becomes king and queen in this country. The country has no right. So we give the money.

Hereditary succession. So we give them money and they play a role in creating our world and we don't have any say in it. We really are subjects then. That's the way you see it. If the monarch was facing, if the monarch was facing the charges that Prince Andrew could potentially be facing,

then yes, there would be a case for abdication. If the heir to the throne were facing the charges that Andrew Mount Benton were facing, there would be a question about the line of succession. But we're talking about the eighth in line to the throne. It is so beyond the realms of realism that this person will come within a hair's breadth of the monarchy. It doesn't matter.

And you don't, for something that's never going to happen, you don't start tampering with an ancient constitution. You start listening. Which has so many repercussions around the Commonwealth and for British taxpayers. It's absolute madness. How much more do you... I mean, let's go the full way.

Tar and feather, Andrew, have him right. naked through the streets of this city and of this country. Well, there's some of the families are the women that he abused that might like that. If you want to use parliamentary time. Allegedly. If you want to use parliamentary time, because this has to take up time in parliament, maybe get the Prime Minister to strip him formally of his peerage titles. Because in law, the King can't do that.

People are demanding more. I mean, the problem that you've got, well, the problem you've got now is that you've got the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and Australia openly advocating for Andrew to be removed. We've got Labour sources briefing that actually this could all be done within six months. I've got a plan in order to do it. And I almost feel like it was the boy who cried wolf in terms of removing Andrew of his titles to begin with. Because remember we were told, oh, this could never happen.

It's impossible. And then all of a sudden, overnight, it did happen. It didn't happen. It didn't happen. He is still legally the Duke of York. He's also an Earl and a Baron. He's not his Royal Highness of Duke of York. He's his grace, the Duke of York.

All the king can do is stop him using the titles formally, but legally he remains as only Parliament has the power because peerish titles are a form of property, and it's a long-standing principle. The monarchy cannot take your property away from you. Only the elected representatives in Parliament can do that. So the king has done all he can. The ball is in Kirstarmer's court if he wants to strip him of those titles.

I would say, for a man who takes his title so seriously, that would be a real punishment for Andrew, who is so proud, rather than removing him for the line of succession, which means absolutely nothing. For proud, I would swap arrogant. And you've just made my case for me then, saying that it doesn't matter what they do, we have to put up with them.

That's more or less what you're suggesting. No, I'm saying you can punish him by stripping him of his title. Yes, I'm all stripping on those titles if you need to. But line of succession is a constitutional issue with huge repercussions in many ways, and it's a silly thing to do when it's not going to happen. Rave, I've got to paint another hypothetical for you then. And this is not beyond the realms of possibility.

Okay, Andrew is under a police investigation has been arrested. He's charged. He's found guilty in court. What you're suggesting is that someone who could be serving a lengthy prison turn for essentially treasonous behavior. If he does go down for misconduct in public office, I know we're a few steps away from that, but the police at least believe that there is enough evidence to. investigate, you're saying that he remains eighth in line to the throne. Now, what I'm saying is I completely understand where you're coming from on a constitutional basis, right? I am a big royalist,

a big monarchist. But I guess, Rafe, I would say I'm also a realist. And I understand the British public, and I understand the media. And I just think that will not stand, Rafe. So we might as well do it now, because the idea that we're going to have eighth in line to the three, a potential criminal serving time. That could bring down the monarchy. So even though I listen to all of your arguments about potential destabilization and all of that, I think we have to deal with the situation that we're in

and Andrew has to go. And actually, what could happen here, Ray, in my view, is that this could be used for the modernisation project which William is planning anyway, which means also, let's just deal with this at once, get rid of Beatrice and Eugene 2, strip their titles at the same time and remove Harry

and his two children as well. Oh, 100%. And remember, Rafe, there are question marks about the births of Archie and Lily anyway. So I think there are ways to do that quite easily. Well, the problem, if you strip Harry and Andrew

out of the line of succession, are you going to strip also Edward out of the line of succession and others? Because you're going to get to a point there. We've had it in the past where raw families do go extinct if you suddenly limit, if you limit the line of succession to William and his children,

is every possibility that in the future we'd have to find a new royal house. No, I think it couldn't function. We have lines of succession for a reason. It's not a popularity contest. This is not a morality line. This is not a list about who's going to be beatified as a saint next. This is simply a line. And once you start tampering with the line of succession,

what is the new protocol then? What is the test, the threshold, which you strip somebody. Service. I would say service, duty. There are thousands of people in the line of succession who could basically fall under that. You know, Princess Caroline of Monaco of Hanover was a criminal conviction, I think, at some point.

She's in the line of succession. The reality is, if it's so close that you were in the third in line to the succession, I can see this being an issue. If you're eighth, you're basically 1,000th, or you're 10,000. It's never going to happen. It's too risky to go down all of this.

And I would hope, if it's a complicated issue constitutionally, that's why the British public, I think, would need to be sort of educated on this, hopefully listen to this, and some will change their minds, once they realize how ridiculous an argument it is, given the fact that the cons outweigh the pros so dramatically. And I wish people would listen to you, and if they did,

I think maybe they would understand. But the reality is, Rafe, that isn't happening, and it isn't going to happen, because what you've got is a tabloid media who desperately want to find an easy way to make changes to save the monarchy. You know, the tabloid media is in favor of the monarchy, but they know that they have to give some red meat to their readers.

And the politicians are pro this. I mean, we have a hard left government. People don't admit it. But the politicians certainly want the line of succession to be changed. I think even Stama, the prime minister, wants this to happen because he sees this as an easy political victory. So I just feel it's unrealistic to see a way where Andrew and his daughters are going to stay in there.

So why not do this now and take the PR win? That's another way to clean up the mess, though. They could come out and speak. Beatrice and Janie could say, look, we realise are sullied with this. We're not going to act as princesses. And we're going to spend our lives, not making profits for people in the Middle East of dubious connections. We're going to do service.

We're going to have a life of service. They're never going to give up those titles. Of course. But that's why they should lose them. But yeah, but there is that. It's another way. And another way of doing it is halfway where Charles describes what's happening,

describes the limitations of his role and how it couldn't work, but what he would like to do and how he feels about what's going on as well. And just try and win people back. I just think that the public have turned their back on them. I mean, Rafe, silence, I don't get that. And I don't think it is sensible at all.

No, look, I think there needs to be greater transparency and I fully suspect that after this we're going to see, again, a very different monarchy than the monarchy that started this reign. But I do think, you know, given... But why haven't we heard from Charles? I think the fact that Andrew is potentially facing criminal charges could end up in prison, has lost everything, lost all his standing and status and honors and offices,

has been become a huge pariah. I can't go anywhere now in this country without fear of being booed and so forth. Trying to go down the line of succession, it just seems really vindictive now. It's almost like the mob in the street, just baying for blood, finding anything that they can do now to damage this man,

I think he's behaved despicably. Even though he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law, I think his conduct has been absolutely appalling. But I think now we're just going into the realm now. We're just trying to beat a man who's already on the ground. Anna? Well, I think he should go into a room with the survivors and their families and listen to what they have to say.

Yeah, well, fine. Let that happen. He's pilloried. It's not like he's been out sweeping the streets and helping old people with their shopping, is it? I mean, he's been absolutely catastrophic. his conduct. Yeah.

And that's why he's getting what he deserves. Also, he's having a supported life. He's not even going, I mean, you know, my husband worked 46 years before he retired. Has Andrew done that? He's got a, what's he got? He's got a £20,000 Navy pension and some, where's the other money coming from? How is he paying his bills? Who is paying his bills?

Yeah, there's a fine other questions to happen. To the line of succession. If you want him to go in, that's why he should be gone. If you want him to go into a room with the victims of our vaccine, I can face it. Absolutely. Go for it. I don't mind all of that.

I'm saying this line of succession is not a morality issue. It's not a popularity contest. It's part of the constitution. And there are huge risks and repercussions to this. We could be seeing the end of the monarchy in the Commonwealth realms. Well, we want no more like him, do we? We could be held hostage by Caribbean nations over this. I think you can't dismiss those things lightly.

I mean, Anna, that is such an important point, isn't it? These Caribbean nations want to bankrupt the United States. Kingdom, the types of reparations that they are demanding, would literally see us destroyed overnight. And actually, a bloke like Sir Lenny Henry, who takes that title, Sir, wants to bankrupt us with the most ridiculous demand for reparations. And I am really worried about what Rafe is saying here, because if these Caribbean nations decide to use the political pressure that they're going to, there is in the United Kingdom to remove Andrew and Betras and Eugenie from the line of succession and effectively barter with us to open the door to reparations.

That is so dangerous and that would put me off. I have to admit, I've been very much pro removing Andrew from the line of succession, but that is a huge concern for me. I don't think it needs to be right now. Dealing with him is the first issue and that then maybe the public then will see a change. it won't go as far as reparation and all of that. I mean, surely that can be managed. I mean, I just think that's a red herring and an excuse for not acting.

I don't think anyone's taking what he's done seriously enough in this room to be, you know, to be talking about the wider political fallout from it. Okay, let it happen. Let it happen because the public are sick of it. And, Charles, I mean, that sounds like an excuse dreamt up by the flunkies at the pallets. Like, let's put it to them. Anime, I've got to pick you up on that. Because I'm the person who has been speaking about Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor,

and his alleged crimes since 2011. You've hauled the Caribbean. When no one like you was interested, you just jumped on the bandwagon anime when all of a sudden this was an opportunity. Like me. I don't know what you mean by like me. Well, okay. Like you, commentators who are all of a sudden talking about,

I'm not saying you should shut up. Let the royals have their fun. Let the royals spend our money. Let the royals do what they like. And we're all looking the other way. You said I'm responding directly to something that you said about me and Rafe because you said that the people in this room are not taking Andrew's alleged crime series. And I am very offended by that.

Because I was at the news of the world in 2011 and you can say whatever you want about the news of the world, right? The newspaper shut down soon after because of the phone hacking scandal. But in 2011, I was at the news of the world when we published. those pictures of Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, then Prince Andrew, in Central Park with Geoffrey Epstein. I need to remind you that without those pictures, there would be no Epstein files. Full stop. It was only those pictures that revealed to the world the fact that Andrew had this dodgy relationship with the paedophile. And remember, Anna, May, for 15 years, 15 years,

the deep state and the British establishment tried to cover it up. So you cannot, I mean, go back and look at everything I've said about this for 15 years because people are always throwing this and me. Why do you speak about Harry and Megan? You know, so it's not that I do not take the allegations against Andrew seriously. 15 years. I take them of utmost, utmost seriously. And I was disgusted by the cover-up.

Times up. Well, I think it should have been up 15 years ago. That's what the public thinks as well. I'm disgusted by the fact that the police never investigated, for example. But then they probably weren't allowed. I mean, at what level was this concealed? I mean, that's the other thing. We know nothing.

We know nothing of this, do we? Yes. And then he went on, that picture in the park that you referred to. You should take back saying that I do not take seriously and true. Both you chaps have just talked about all the admin, admin, admin, yeah, reasons why it's not a problem. Real world consequences. Well, I think those, I think the victims are the real world,

have experienced a real, real world. Oh my God, consequences of Andrew and Epstein. And God knows what Mandelson was up to in his knickers in that apartment in Paris. All of them, all of them. And the public are up to here with it now. Up to here. We don't want to hear about the Constitution. We want our king.

That is a fair point from Anna made. That is a fair point. Essentially what she is saying is that forget the constitutional implications here. Rife, I know that's your job. I know that's what you have to think about. But you've got to think about the fact that the public simply will not. tolerate the idea of Andrew as eighth in line to the show. They're just not going to tolerate it, Rafe.

That's what Anna Mae is saying. I don't see any evidence for that. I think they're sensible enough to know that when you're 8th and 9, you're never going to get to the throne. There's no realistic issue on that front. And I think once you tell the British public, well, yes, if you want to have this meaningless act for symbolism, go ahead.

But you are going to have to pay potentially reparations as it's going to hurt you in the wallet. I think opinion's going to change very dramatically there. There's one final thing. There's one final thing we haven't discussed. And, you know, one of the reasons Barbados became a republic was because China wants to destabilize Britain globally. And by doing that, they want to basically get all the Commonwealth rebels to become republic. So China has been paying Barbados secretly. That's one of the reasons they went to become a republic.

Yes. If they see the Lion's Succession being debated amongst the Commonwealth realms, China's going to be right in there, offering them all sorts of sweet deals to basically block this and abolish the monarchy in order to get basically diminished Britain's standing globally. I think, you know, yes, awful things that Andrew did, but the real world consequences for Britain in soft power, geopolitics, and for millions of people around the world who live under a monarchy would be profound and are too risky. And, mate, that is such an important point.

And this is what we all have to think about, right? Like, you would be empowering China under this arrangement. I just think that it makes, this makes what Andrew and his cohort, his circle, even worse. It makes it worse, doesn't it? because look at the, you're saying that these consequences will fall down on us. But the trouble is, though, that what's happening with the public now is that they want change, they want to hear from Charles.

And most importantly, I think that they, I think that they're going to become indifferent. If nothing changes, an indifference to a royalty is even worse than disliking them. I mean, what are they there for if we're not interested in them? But life's not going to change. Life before he's removed from the line of succession and life after is going to be exactly the same for everybody. People will feel vindicated. But it's not about feeling. and emotions. This is about real world consequences

for Britain globally. Not not to mention our trade and everything else that we have involved with these countries. Good luck going to present in that for the great British public because I don't think it will wash. I think they'll be very convinced by such an argument actually. This is the problem though, isn't it? Too often

we just give in to sort of woke, wet hysteria rather than actually thinking, okay, we can deal with the problem that way but we don't need to be hysterical in a way that is going to undermine our country in other ways. What's making someone who allegedly was having sex with underage girls, a wet, woke theory.

Well, no, I'm talking about by saying we've got to take everything away from Andrew. And I do think it is a woke and wet argument. I'm sorry, in terms of saying, okay, because of what happened with the accusers of Epstein, we have to undermine Britain's constitution. I do think that is sort of the woke and wet arguments that are made because they're all about destruction of everything, right? That's what happens in a scenario like this. Actually, we're not thinking here about the wider consequences.

So what's your solution to it then? What do you expect? Well, I do think Rief has made a very convincing point to me and what I would like to see before we go down this path is a certainty that, this would not be used by the Caribbean nations to demand reparations. I think that's very important. But I don't think there's a way that we could do this without understanding that China

would be trying to undermine our entire British royal family. So while I do totally agree with you that there are huge PR issues in terms of keeping Andrew in the line of succession, especially if he has found G. guilty. I think we do have to have a more honest conversation about the consequences. Yeah, I think they should have opened the doors, open the windows a long time ago, and we wouldn't be in the situation where we are now. I heard someone speaking who worked for the Royal Family, and he said that when Andrew got out of bed in the morning in his gym jams, he'd pass a member of staff on the way to get his breakfast,

and the member of staff would say, good morning, and Andrew, then formerly Prince Andrew, would say off. That was his greeting for his staff in the morning. So I think that's past. A guy like that shouldn't be in the line of succession, should he? For the fact that he was able to do that for so long, it kind of, I know this. It's not a popularity contest or a moral contest. We can't pick and choose and start tampering with things because then where does it end? Just, well, I don't like this person.

I think he's like an obnoxious person. He has to get out of it. Well, that's a big test to go down. And you're never going to please everybody in the nation, are you? So you're always going to have a contentious person there. As I said, if it's in the first three lines of the throne, I can understand it. Okay, but what about King Harry then? I think that would actually destroy this.

the British monarchy. Again, he's too far away. We would never, we would never accept that. He's never going to become king either. I mean, this is just ludicrous discussions. There's not enough money in the monarchy to satisfy Megan. None of us ever want to, that's true. None of us ever want to think that something like this could happen, Rafe.

But of course, you only need one terrible terrorist attack to take out William Catherine and their three children. Well, of course, but that is why we have a line of succession. I mean, it is to prepare for that. that. And so, I mean, I know I'm sort of now convincing myself the other way, but I am just thinking a King Harry and a Queen Megan would actually kill off the British Royal Family anyway. It would. We wouldn't accept that as a country, Rafe. Honestly, we wouldn't. I just think all our bananas would have nice messages. And on that bombshell, we can have. It's not all that.

On that bombshell, I think we can say that there is no clear agreement. But look, this has been a fascinating conversation though because you've really got me thinking you really have you both have and as i say animate i mean on the line of succession issue i mean i'm not with you at all on the abdication issue on the line of succession issue i am with you but i do think the points that raf makes about having to think about the wider yeah the wider concept of this my worry is rife and i think you know this people don't want to have an intelligent conversation about this is just about taking people down at any cost. But look, thank you so much. Fascinating conversation. The author, Anna Mae Mangon and the Royal Historian, and he is also senior fellow at the New Culture Forum,

Rafe Hadle Mancoo. Fascinating discussion. Thank you both so much. Very respectful. Now, look, we're moving over to Substack now for the Royal Uncanceled After Show, so you can sign up for much more royal discussion there at www.w.outspoken.live. And we are back every weekday, 5pm UK time, Midday Eastern, 9am Pacific. Remember to hit subscribe. Right now on YouTube, you can also subscribe to us as a podcast. It is completely free. We're available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

Most importantly, I promise to keep fighting for you.