The Royals with Roya and Kate - Should the King address Andrew this Christmas?

Episode Date: December 24, 2025

As Britain prepares to hear the King’s Christmas Broadcast, we ask what the monarch’s message can - and can’t - achieve after one of the most difficult years the institution has faced in decades. With the Andrew and Epstein link deepening scrutiny of the Crown, and public support for the monarchy at a historic low, how does the King speak to a world that is changing fast? Kate and Roya are joined by The Sunday Times Europe editor Peter Conradi to explore royal crises past and present, the power of the Christmas message, and what Charles needs to say, or carefully avoid, in his most important speech to date.Presenters: Roya Nikkhah, royal editor for The Sunday Times, and Kate Mansey, royal editor of The TimesContributor: Peter Conradi, Europe editor of The Sunday TimesProducer: Robert WallaceEditor: Stephen TitheringtonImage: X.com / @RoyalFamily Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello and welcome to the Royals from The Times and the Sunday Times with me Kate Mansi and me, Roya Nika. Almost every Christmas since 1932, people across Britain have gathered around radios and TV set at 3 o'clock for one thing, the Monarch's Christmas message, and today is no exception. It's a rare moment every year where the sovereign steps out from behind ceremony to speak directly to the nation. And ever since George V delivered that very first broadcast, the message has become the monarchy's most deliberate act of communication, a chance to set the tone, offer reassurance and gently signal the values the Crown wants to project in the year ahead. But this year,

that message won't land in a vacuum. The monarchy is closing out 2025 under immense pressure. The scandal surrounding Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, has reignited questions about accountability, privilege, and trust. Just a support for the institution hits an historic low. And of course, it isn't the first time a Christmas message has landed amid royal turmoil. From the fallout of the Anna Shorribilis to the aftermath of Diana's death, the Christmas broadcast has always been more than just a message. It's a test of the palace's judgment, tone and timing. And all of this sits on top of a deeper challenge.

In an age shaped by transparency in social media, do the old rules of royal messaging still work? Should the message be on TikTok, not TV? To help us answer these questions, we're joined by someone who's been thinking, writing and reporting on the monarchy for decades. Peter Conradi is Europe editor for the Times and the Sunday, Times, an author of royal books, including The Great Survivors, How Monarchy Made It Into the 21st Century,

and The King's Speech, which tells the true story behind the events shown in the film with the same name, which no doubt is showing somewhere this Christmas. Peter, welcome to the Royals. Thanks very much. Pleasure to be here. Great to have you. So Peter, today we're asking this. What can the monarch's message achieve in a year like this?

And crucially, what does the King need to say in what my first? be his most important broadcast to date. Now, Peter, you've been foreign correspondent, Europe editor, biographer, cultural commentator, but what is it about the monarchy that draws you in again and again? I suppose as so often happens with journalism, I got into writing about monarchy rather by chance about 15 years or so ago, but became fascinated by it. I suppose not so much by the sort of day-to-day week-by-week stuff that both of you cover. well, although, you know, I obviously read all these twists and turns just like any other avid news consumer. But, you know, in my case, rather, the institution of monarchy itself

and how it functions. And I mean, that means in historical sense, how the monarchy has evolved over the years, I suppose over the centuries, but also my current job as Europe editor of the Sunday Times, also looking at Europe's other six other monarchies, which We Brits often forget actually exist about how they function, I suppose, and the differences and the similarities with our own, which means also looking at the way that they've survived and how the majority of others that we used to have in Europe haven't. Peter, you recently wrote a fascinating piece for us on the Sunday Times

about the pressures facing the monarchy and looking at European monarchies as well. When you look at the sort of turbulence that the Windsors have been through this year, How do you compare it to other periods of choppy waters that we've seen them go through over the decades that you've reported on? No, this has obviously been a very, very difficult year, most obviously, because as you say, the deepening scandal surrounding Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor. And it's been all the more damaging because it's come at a time, I think, where the institution itself seems to have been suffering one of these periods of fragility that we've seen over time from year to year. So, you know, it got through the death of the late Queen in September 22, remarkably well. You know, at the time there was some speculation that some of those other 14 countries,

Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on, who also have our monarch as their head of state, would, you know, take that opportunity of the change of rain to peel away. You know, that hasn't happened. And I think the current Queen, Camilla, has also been accepted by the people as a whole in a way that would scarcely have seen possible at the height of Charles's battles with Diana back in the 1990s. But there's no getting away from the fact that the late Queen was obviously a very, very difficult act to follow. I mean, part of that I think was because she'd been just 25 when she came to the throne. By the end, she'd been there for 70 years. Charles, by contrast, he was already 73 when he became king, which meant, obviously, he wasn't

sort of young and fresh and exciting and appearing to inaugurate a new era, but he also didn't have the sort of the benefit of incumbency. So it's, you know, in a sense, wasn't his fault, but all, you know, these two factors were against him. And then obviously in early last year, we had the announcement first of his diagnosis of cancer and the Princess of Wales is diagnosed. of cancer, which thankfully, both of whom seem to be a lot better now. You know, so you look at the royal family in crisis, but then we've got to bear in mind also that it has a habit of getting into crises and overcoming them.

I mean, most obviously, the abdication of Edward the 8th in 1936. In terms of, you know, putting it in context of crises, and you talked about the monarchy is known for putting itself out. We had, in 1992, the Queen described that year at the end of the year as her, Anna's Horribalist, didn't she? Because we had, obviously Charles and Dana's marriage was starting to very visibly crumble. We had the separation of Fergie and Andrew. We had, I think, Princess Anne separated too. Not a good year. And of course, we had the fire at Windsor Castle. We then, in 1995, we had Diana give her explosive panorama interview, all the extraordinary implications and the

domino effect after that. How do you put Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's scandal, ongoing scandal? How do you sort of place that in terms of historical context in terms of just how bad it has been for them? I think it's bad because if one looks back at the Anas Horribilis 1992, it was essentially, you know, three out of her, the Queen's four children's marriages breaking up. Now, you know, it's not such a shameful thing for a marriage to break up. A lot of people's marriages break up. Again, Diana's death in 1997 was a great tragedy. There were concerns about the way that the royal family had handled it. initially, but again, you know, it was something, it was, you know, a tragic accident. Here we have a much more damaging scandal, potentially, because it goes really to the heart

of the monarchy, it sort of overlaps, it's not just a personal matter, it's not just private matters, although, you know, in the case of the link with Epstein, or ledge link with Epstein, it clearly is and it's very, very damaging indeed. But I think, you know, there's a more fundamental problem with monarchy with royal families in a sense that you know if you if you compare it with an organization if you compare it with you know they used to call themselves the firm i don't know if they still do if you look at any firm and you've got a member of that firm who is behaving badly you sever links with them you find a way of doing it you get rid of them they're nothing to do with you anymore you know the problem with royal families is that you can never completely sever

links with someone because they're part of the family and that's you know that is the fundamental mental issue, I think, not just they but other European monarchies, I think we get on to in a moment, who've had a, you know, their fair share of scandals have also found that you can, you know, someone will always be the king, the son, the daughter, the brother, the sister of the monarch. And there's no getting away from it. We must say that he's always denied any allegations of wrongdoing. So when you look at the kind of the pressure, the scrutiny and the public mood around the family as a unit, like you say, what themes do you think are Christian?

message from the king could possibly address in a year such as this one. I mean, he's obviously not going to dive into the Andrew problem, is he? That is not going to be in the Christmas broadcast. No, but it's going to be the elephant in the room, isn't it? So how do you talk about family togetherness at a time when we've seen him outriding in the rain while the rest of the family are invited into Buckingham Palace for lunch? We know that the whole family who spend Christmas Day with the King and Queen at Sandringham all after lunch, gather around to sit and watch the broadcast with him.

Everyone except Andrew, who's not going to be doing that because he's not going to be there. As a wise owl who's observed monarchies for decades, what would you advise King Charles to say to get around the elephant in the room? Oh, goodness me. I mean, he is damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't, isn't he? I mean, that is the problem. I mean, what an elephant it is. I suppose you want to wonder, we mentioned earlier in 1992 that the so-called Anas horribilis

when everything appeared to go wrong. I mean, what happened on that occasion? At a occasion, I mean, interestingly, the Queen didn't repeat the phrase Anna Cerebellus in her Christmas speech. That was the Guildhall speech, wasn't it? It had stuck by then. She didn't she, kind of cleared it out the way, didn't she, before the Christmas message, which was quite a smart way of doing it, really? Yeah, and I mean, what she did was that, you know, I was looking back at her words. And I mean, what she said was merely, like many other families, we've lived through some difficult days this year.

So people watching that would have said, well, yeah. An understatement of the century. Precisely. You know, they managed to, she didn't speak, she didn't kind of go into the personal stuff of her children's marital breakups. And I mean, again in 1997, which was, so four months after Diana's death,

obviously she had to speak about Diana's death and she could mention Diana's death directly. She had to mention Diana's death directly. But she also kind of coupled that with her and Philip's golden wedding anniversary that had also fallen that year. And again, looking back at what she said, then she spoke about the shock and sorrow mingled with happiness

that she and Philip had experienced. So, I don't know, there's always been attempts in the past, not so much to relativise things, but to, I don't know, kind of soften them a little bit. And I suspect that they will attempt something similar this year, but I think we will hear very soon. If we look at briefly three messages he's, done so far what he's talked about. In 2022, the first year of his reign, there was the sort of

referencing of his mother. He did it from St. George's Chapel, Windsor, paying tribute to her, you know, where she's buried. And he talked about community hardship and the generosity of volunteering. In 2023, he was at Buckingham Palace, overlooking the Victoria Memorial. And that, again, was all about volunteering, the environment, shared values in a global conflict, the echoes of Ukraine, Russia conflict there. And last year, we had a real break from tradition. He was at the Fitzerovia Chapel, a rare break from recording the broadcast at a royal residence. And he talked about, he paid tribute to healthcare workers who had supported him and who support so many others. And I think this year, given we've just had that address to

the nation that he's just done, forced down up to cancer, delivering that news that his treatment's going to be reduced in the new year. He's not in remission yet, but his... He said it was good news, didn't he? Good news and a personal blessing. I think there's an opportunity for him again to talk about, you know, the good news, the good health news, the importance again of early screening. I suspect he'll pay tribute to healthcare workers again. I think that'll be possibly a big point of his speech and it'll be an optimistic one. Yeah. And I think that, well, he can't ignore either some of the speeches that he's given in those three inward state visits where he's talked about, you know, increasing challenges around the world. You know,

that seems to be a kind of recurring theme of the year with, you know, Russian invasion of, you the aggression continues. I think he has talked a lot about this year. I wouldn't be surprised if he decides to talk about the challenges we face as a kind of global community. I mean, what would your crystal ball say, Peter, with regards to what the king should or could say? European togetherness will be in there, maybe? A little bit of... Oh, I think that was a bit sensitive, isn't it, European togetherness? But I think between the two of you, you've actually done a much better PR job than I could have done on suggesting what he could talk about. You know, he could, as the starting point of his not complete recovery, but he's certainly doing much better health-wise. I mean, no one is going to complain if he starts saying positive things

about the National Health Service, about health generally, about caring and that kind of stuff. You know, maybe he might then conceivably find a way of just avoiding this elephant, the Andrew elephant that we were talking about, and might just, you know, not mention it at all. You weren't mentioned it. How can he mention it? How can he mention the former Prince Andrew and former Duke of York in the Christmas message?

He just, that would be a buzzkill. Christmas buzzkill and he won't do it. Well, I bow to your superiority. I suspect he probably won't, but he will get a lot of... That would be the headline if it was. That's what we would all be writing about. I think he's hoping everyone will, you know,

they won't forget, but I think he's hoping people on Christmas Day will not be thinking about Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor. I mean, you've written in depth about the King's speech and how these speeches sort of come about. So how has the Christmas message evolved historically, Peter, from what you know, and what role has it played in those key pivotal moments for the nation? I think in a sense it's remarkable how little the speeches have changed.

I mean, the accents have become considerably less posh over the years. I mean, if one listens to one of the late Queen's early broadcasts in contrasts that with one of the more recent ones in the years leading up to her death, She sounded almost like a different person. But I think the oval arching message, I think, has remained the same. It's sort of, you know, mildly, not overtly, religious in tone, sort of intended to cast the monarch in the role of the head of a great family, which, you know, back in 1932 when we had the first speech,

it was an address not just to the United Kingdom and to, you know, the 14 other countries that we have now that have the king as their head of state, but also to the empire as it was. I mean, let's say if one looks back at why George V made this first broadcast in 1932, it was the idea of Sir John Reith, who was the then Director-General founding figure of the BBC, who had just launched what was called the Empire Service, which is now obviously known as the World Service, that had been launched six days before Christmas that year.

And they've been asking the King for some time to make a broadcast. The King hadn't been enthusiastic because he thought he didn't really take radio very seriously. he thought it was about entertainment and wasn't a serious medium and so on. But he finally agreed as part in a sense of the launch of the Empire Service. And it was all about, you know, the idea was using this new technology as a way of binding together the hundreds of millions of subjects of the Empire. And it remained a one-off. This speech that George V apparently delivered sitting at a desk under the stairs in Sandringham,

reading out words that have been written by Rudyard Kipling. It resurfaced again only under his son, George the 6th, in 1937. Now, George the 6th, famous for his stammer, as we saw in the film, The King's Speech, you know, he took over from his brother just before Christmas in 1936, but he managed to dodge doing a speech at all that year because he was, you know, only been a few days in the job and he said he wasn't quite ready and so on. But there was no getting away from it in 1937. when he made the speech for the first time, again 1938, he ducked out of it.

And it was only in 1939 and from 1939 onwards that he made the speech. That global reach that you've touched on, Peter, that the sort of evolution of it from what was the Empire Service then became the World Service. When it's packaged up by Buckingham Palace, the Christmas broadcast is described officially as the King. address to the nation and the Commonwealth. That is how I said it is described, that is how he's pitched. And it is as much opportunity for him to reach his millions of subjects in his Commonwealth nations as much as it is here. So for him, it's a sort of way of shoring up the international audience, the Commonwealth

nations, too, shoring up the monarchy brand around the world, as much as it is a nice, cozy tradition for Brits here. And not even, although it's specifically for the Commonwealth around the world, there are other countries as well at play. Of course, you know, I'm sure the US president will be watching. You know, I'm sure that message will go out to people in America. So this is a golden opportunity. He'll be watching because he wants to see how many pictures of himself are in there on the state visit.

It's surely got to be included, hasn't he? I mean, this is it, isn't it? It's an opportunity for him to talk about, you know, to put Britain all around the world. We've joked at the beginning of the program, didn't we, about it being a, you know, a future TikTok or something like that. But, you know, it's changing. It's morphing. You've got to address a generation for a different era. Yeah, I mean, I think you can look back. I mean, so it started on radio, and then in 1957, for the first time it was on television.

And that was, you know, the royal family had been reluctant to have it on television. Because at the time, it was recorded live, and it was seen as kind of intrusive, you know, having television cameras interrupting their Christmas day. That was something that was echoed by George the 6th that came out for the research I did for the King's speech book, which was that, you know, he would talk to Lionel Logue, his speech therapist, who himself had to always go up to either Windsor or Sandring and whether the King was to make his Christmas broadcast. And the King would, you know, complain to him about how annoying it was to have to, you know, finish lunch and go and make this broadcast. And he didn't feel that he could properly relax, he could probably celebrate Christmas, until he got it out of the way.

These days, it's not done live. It doesn't need to be done live. But you're right. You know, formats have changed. We had the transition from radio to television. And we've long since had the tradition from television to first just to the internet, then to social media and so on. So, yes, there is a need to modernise in that sense to modernise the medium that's used.

And I wonder how many 20-somethings who are not sort of sitting at home, with their parents or with their grandparents or whatever if they were sitting on their own would they actually say oh it's three o'clock I must turn on the television and see what the king's got to say

and I fear not many because perhaps they don't even have a television to start with it. I suppose that's why they're now reaching out to different audiences isn't it through social media so we look at the Princess of Wales this year launched her seasons

so with every season she narrated a little video and put that out on her social media channels so you had the king on Channel 4 on a Friday night talking about his cancer. But can you see that kind of morphing? Do you think they need to do more of that?

Like you say, a lot of Gen Z aren't going to be putting on, you know, traditional TV channels at 3 o'clock on Christmas Day in their own homes, unless perhaps they're with Granny or other relatives. But they might be streaming Apple TV and watching William on his scooter, zooming into Windsor Castle to have a chat with Eugene Levy. To talk about changes on my agenda, Eugene, and all of that. That's very strong. new, much more modern messaging, isn't it?

The King, too, I suppose. He's got his Amazon project coming out next year, his big harmony film, another giant streamer that you wouldn't expect. It's not the traditional BBC Dimbleby route, is it? No, so I mean, you know, they are embracing these new technologies. And I think, you know, it is a challenge for them or particularly for their advisors to decide what is appropriate, what isn't appropriate, what they'll come out looking good from,

and what they'll just sort of end up looking ridiculous. doing. You know, it's a difficult, it's really a difficult balancing act, but everyone in the public eye faces it. Well, it is a balancing act, isn't it? I mean, how much of yourself do you give? How much do you maintain? And the mystique is interesting. So in your piece in the Sunday Times, you referenced an infamous 1969 documentary called Royal Family, which was broadcast back at the time and then rebroadcast that year in place of a regular Christmas message. So this really showed for the first time the late Queen inviting the cameras behind the scenes

and we saw Prince Philip barbecuing, we saw in a way a much more wholesome kind of family that, you know, apart from just the stage kind of public events. I mean, what did you think about that? Was that a mistake

for the royal family? Was it a good idea for them to open the panaceau? And how much of the kind of daylight, as they say, do they let in on the magic of monarchy? Yeah, I mean, in retrospect, that was absolutely extraordinary. Looking back on it, looking at the decision, I mean, to screen this documentary,

it was all absolutely extraordinary. So, I mean, the catalyst for the broadcasts was the then-Prince Charles' investiture as Prince of Wales in July of 1969. And broadcasters around the world wanted footage of him from the palace. And the problem was that, you know, he hadn't actually done very much at that stage.

So there wasn't an awful lot of footage that could be supplied. So the decision was taken to make a film that looked more broadly at the monarchy and at the royal family, at their role, you know, what they did. And I think it was also part of a feeling then, as perhaps now, that things were changing, the world was changing, this was the 1960s, it was swinging 60s, we weren't in the buttoned up 50s anymore and so on, and that they weren't quite in touch with that. And, you know, interestingly, Prince Philip was a great, great moderniser,

something maybe it's a bit forgotten these days. And he really played a driving role in organising this whole thing. I mean, if you look at it now, it's almost like an early version of reality television. There was, I mean, it gave so much access to them, didn't it? It was unprecedented access to them. And actually, I mean, the general feeling is that most of the royal family, including Prince Philip, the great modernizer, who pushed a race, came to really regret it

because not only was it then pulled very quickly and you quoted in a piece a quote from David Attenborough who at the time was the BBC's director of programmes and he accused the maker of the royal family Richard Causton of, this is the quote, killing the monarchy

because the whole institution depends on mystique and the tribal chief in his hut. If any member of the tribe ever sees inside the hut then the whole system of the tribal chiefdom is damaged and, and the tribe eventually disintegrates. And the late Queen, very soon after that broadcast went out, came to the same conclusion.

I think she felt it had let way too much daylight in on her family. And once you open that door, you can't really close it. So they dip their tear in the water of access in 1969. And I think very soon felt they'd gone way too far. Yeah, and I think it was broadcast on BBC and then a week later it was broadcast on ITV. and I think something like two-thirds of the population of Britain watched it. Once you've seen something, you can't unsee it.

And I think it did, you know, in the longer term, it did change people's perception of the monarchy. And I mean, there's one argument you could say the increasing intrusiveness that on the part of the media that followed in the 70s, 80s, and particularly in the 90s when Diana came on the scene. You could say, you know, in a sense, perhaps the royal family brought this on themselves

through opening themselves up in the first place or maybe all that intrusiveness would have happened anyway. But it's a very, very important episode in their history, I think. Well, it's interesting, isn't it? I mean, there was another interview that Charles did in 1969 around the time of his investiture. And he was incredibly open. They were sort of asking him about his childhood,

about he revealed that he'd found out that he was Prince of Wales, age nine, by sitting in the headmaster's study at Cheam School. But we don't see those interviews in that way as Frank anymore. We don't have the access that we perhaps once did. And maybe this is a reaction to seeing how it can all unfold like that. But it's much more controlled. But it does seem to be they're now trying to renegotiate that relationship with the media.

Do you think that's a good idea, Peter, to try to kind of move with the times? Or are you seeing it as a sign of a family that's been burnt in the past by poor mistakes? No, I mean, I think obviously they have to move. with the times or they'd still be just doing everything on radio. So, you know, that's clear. And there is this kind of relationship between the royal family and those such as yourselves that cover them on a regular basis. You know, you sort of both need each other, as it were.

They would like to control what they release. And obviously, your job is to find things that they don't want to release and to report them. And so there's, you know, there is always this kind of battle backwards and forward. think, you know, regardless of which medium or media it plays out in, that's the inevitable result of covering the royals in any way. And I mean, maybe in the past, you know, as recently, I suppose as the 60s and the 70s, you know, there was still a very deferential attitude on the part of the media towards the royal family. You know, obviously we're not

in that kind of age anymore. People are far, far less deferential. The media are far far less deferential. You both probably know far better more about how that works than I do. Well, that's it, isn't it? I mean, when we pull it all together, the scandal, the scrutiny, the history, is the message actually keeping up with the moment? Because in your piece, you look at that sort of sliding scale. It's the graph, isn't it, that shows that popularity of the monarchy is down lower than it's ever been before. You know, we've seen kind of little peaks with the jubilees of the late queen. But actually, it's going in one direction.

I mean, the latest research published in September before Andrew was deprinted, if you like, shows only about half the country now thinks Britain should remain a monarchy. 51%. So support is falling faster among younger generations as well, where Republican sentiment is becoming the norm. How are they going to turn the ship around? Yeah, I mean, I think that is actually very, very dramatic. I mean, it's strange, there is this every year, this National Centre for Social Research, every year since 1983, they brought out a report asking essentially the same question. The latest report that came out in September was barely noticed by the media at the time. I must say, I certainly missed it completely, to the question, should Britain remain a monarchy?

When they asked that question in 1983, 86% of the population said yes. When they asked it again in September, as you said, a mere 51% said yes. I mean, that is a huge long-term decline and a pretty alarming decline, I think. And that was before Andrew. And even more alarming is when you look at it on a break it down on generational basis, you look at people 16 to 34, something like six out of 10 of those would like to have an elected head of state. So a majority of under 34s, one elected head of state. Then you look at the over 55s, three quarters of them, one to continuation of the monarchy. So I suppose there are two

questions or there are two possibilities. One is that as those young people get older, they get more fond of institutions and perhaps they become a bit more monarchist. The reality, I think, is that as they get older, they keep that same opinion and you see a further decline that, you know, at this rate, if we go another 40 years, we could be down to maybe, you know, 30% support. And I mean, how long can a monarchy endure if it's, you know, has so little public support? Well, one of the points you made in your piece was you look to European monarchies, which look and feel very different to ours.

They're much smaller. Do they have some lessons that the Windsors can learn from in terms of evolution and going forwards? Yeah, I think some lessons, but I mean, you know, I mean, one should certainly not think that everything is perfect on the other side of the channel when it comes to monarchy. I mean, I suppose the monarchy facing the most problems is probably the Norwegian monarchy,

where we have the crown princess metamarit, so the woman who's going to be the next queen of Norway, her son from a previous relationship, is going on trial in February for a number of very, very serious offences, including several counts of rape, which we should make clear he denies. I mean, you know, imagine that were happening in Britain. I mean, that is a mega crisis.

We've had Juan Carlos, the former king of Spain, who a decade or so ago, had to resign because of a mixture of kind of personal and financial improprieties, I suppose we could say. So there have been problems. We shouldn't think that everything works perfect. But they, you know, they are, let's say they're not as lavish as our monarchy. I mean, our monarchy, I think, costs about half a billion pounds a year. It's been estimated.

Theirs are all considerably cheaper. And, you know, no, they don't live in social housing. They all have palaces. They do royal things. They satisfy all those kind of criteria. But they don't have quite as many palaces as ours do. They don't have quite as lavish budgets or so on. They're royal light.

They are indeed. So back to the Christmas broadcast, finally. I want to ask you, Peter, in UK, what would you like to see or hear the king say? If there's one thing you'd like, one point you'd like him to touch on or theme you'd like him to go out, what would it be? I think it would be refreshing. We expect the king to talk a bit about his personal cancer battle,

throw it open, I think, to other people going through. And I think that is really important. I think he does need to acknowledge that it's something that touches every family in the country and both here and abroad and I think it will be really nice to acknowledge that and the fact that it is something that we all need

to come together to help with cancer research. I think it would be refreshing for the King to talk about some of the struggles other families are going through. You know, this has been a year in which you've had a budget, which has been quite controversial, lots of people are feeling the pinch. And I think for the monarch

to acknowledge some of the struggles that are happening in families across the country would be really timely. We did talk about the cost of living crisis a couple years ago, didn't he? So it might be timely for him to do that again. Yeah, I think given that, you know, we're talking about, Peter's been talking about,

you know, European royal families being cheaper, you know, there's a big discussion that's going to be had in 2026 by the Public Accounts Committee about how the property deals are done between members of the Royal Family and the Crown Estate. We're going to be looking again at public finances for the Royal House.

household, and that's going to be a big issue coming up. So I think perhaps if the King might be quite wise to just acknowledge some of the financial strains that families are feeling. And I think that would be interesting. But of course, as well, he's going to look at the global picture, I'm sure, to talk about the international challenges we all face. Peter. I think, I mean, just sort of taking up those points, really. I think it would be, you know, I don't live in Britain. I live in France, but I come back to Britain a lot. And I, you know, my impression is maybe from talking to people, but also from reading the media or so on, that there is quite a lot of negativity around at the moment. And I think that anything that he can say

to sort of bring people together to kind of cheer people up even, I think would be very, very welcome indeed to sort of say, well, actually, you know, things are not as bad as everyone says. You know, yes, there's a cost of living crisis. Yes, a lot of people are suffering financially at the moment. But, you know, let's look at the positive. Let's look at, you know, the great things that Britain has to offer, it is and remains whatever political problems it may have, a great country to live in. And I think one shouldn't lose sight of that. So something a bit upbeat, something a little bit possible. Big up the UK. And what about you, Roy? What do you think? I would like to see him find a way to acknowledge what so many people feel at Christmas

that Christmas is can be a really trying time with your family. It's not always picture perfect. And he knows it better than anyone. And that goes the same for him. his family as well as everyone else's families. And I think if there was a clever way for him to acknowledge that, people would go, well done, King Charles. I don't think he will, but it'd be nice to see him try. So our thanks to Peter Comrade for joining us for such a thoughtful and interesting conversation. That's all from us for this episode of the Royals. We'll of course be watching closely as the King delivers his Christmas broadcast and we'll be back in the new year to unpack what it all means. Until then, thank you for joining us and Merry

Christmas to all of you from all of us here at the Royals.