Meghan Markle Rewards Anti-Kate Troll With $300 ‘Care Package’ | Royal Exclusive

Coming up on this week's Royal Exclusive, was there a cover -up at the Palace?Who's in and who's out at the Royal Wedding of the Year?Plus, who said that Meghan's expensive candles are obnoxious?Welcome to this week's show where questions are being asked about whether there was a palace cover -up over Andrew's business dealings, who knew what and when.Plus, Meghan faces accusations of hypocrisy after launching luxury candles she once dismissed as overpriced.There are also fresh questions over standards inside Royal Protection after officers were accused of sexism and sleeping on duty.

And is Prince William secretly the most normal royal of all?The future king has reportedly been disguising himself for nights out with the lads, and even drinking Stella.I'm Matt Wilkinson, Royal Editor of The Sun, and joining me to unpack all this, our Royal Biographer, Robert Jobson, and former Press Secretary to Queen Elizabeth II, Elsa Anderson.Welcome to you both.Now guys, just as we thought that, you know, we were gradually running out of things to talk about with Andrew Mountbatten -Windsor and everything that's been going on with him, We now learn that way back in 2020, six years ago, there were 30 ,000 emails sent to the palace revealing allegations of dodgy financial dealings.This means that Buckingham Palace knew about accusations towards Andrew Batten -Windsor connected to his money and his time as a trade envoy before they paid Virginia Dufresne, or before Virginia Dufresne received a payment, and before his arrest, and before he was evicted and had his title stripped by the king last year.

Has there been a Buckingham Palace cover -up?

Well, I mean, we do know the facts that the emails were sent, but I can't imagine Buckingham Palace, from my understanding, would have had anybody trawling through 30 ,000 emails.I just can't imagine.they were the one, they'd been picked out, the ones that highlight the issues.But the fact that they were given them, the fact that they were supposed to highlight um wrongdoing um and the fact that that wasn't brought to the public's attention you know it's bad news for the palace but i don't i'm i think a cover -up suggests that they they did it on purpose i i would have thought that the reality is here had many of these emails even been read.I don't suppose they've got the staff to sit there and go through 30 ,000 emails.

It is a lot of emails.That's a good point.It says that these emails showed or alleged that Andrew was sharing confidential government information, which is, to be fair, what I believe he's been arrested for now.And they were passed to the Lord Chamberlain in 2020.Elsa, you worked for Buckingham Palace for many years before 2020, which we'll point out.But presumably, if the Lord Chamberlain knew that these emails exist, would the late Queen, would Prince Charles, would Andrew Mountbatten -Windsor have been told that these emails exist?

Well, Lord Chamberlain is very much sort of an honorary role.He has a staff of one.And it was during COVID.So 30 ,000 emails coming to him.I mean, he doesn't even have an email account.So I don't quite know how that would have worked.

But what I would say is, is the palace have consistently said they will fully cooperate with the ongoing police investigation.And I'm sure you know, they will be true to their word in saying that.But I have to say I agree with with with Rob that it's it sounds more like a it doesn't sound like a conspiracy or, or palace cover up.It sounds much more like a, you know, an error, I think.

An error, Rob.I mean, the King acted last year once he realised that Andrew had lied, but could they have...could the palace, could the late Queen have done more back in the day?

It's possible but there wasn't a police investigation ongoing at the time and we were getting all sorts of conflicting stories about it.My biggest issue is not so much the 30 ,000 emails, really, that should probably have been passed on to the police, but that would have meant the palace would start the investigation into Prince Andrew, and it would have surely been on the, the onus has to come from the investigative body, i .e.the police, to ask for this information.But you know, there's an argument to say it should have been passed down the line and it should have been, more people should have been aware of it.The bigger issue for me is that the palace paid something in the region of £12 million to Virginia Gouffrey, a woman that Andrew Mountbatten wins the city never met.

And I think that never, that doesn't stack up.And to me, I've always thought that just smacks of being hush money.

I mean we're still trying to find out the actual ins and outs of who paid when and still we still actually don't know how much really because it's all confidential.

There's been a fudge about it as well you know with over whether or not the King paid money where I know the Sun wrote that he did pay money so you know you've got a lot of issues that will come out but the most important thing to remember at this moment in time is that as it stands Andrew Mountbatten Mountbatten -Windsor is an innocent man.He's not been proven guilty of anything.There's an ongoing investigation.He's not been charged or anything.And all of this is evidence that will be amassed, sifted through by a number of detectives, and a decision will be made by the force and the CPS as whether they're going to pursue this in a court of law.And then you've got a long way to go before it goes to court, and you've got a long way to go before there's a trial and a verdict.

So I think we've got a lot of miles to go yet until we know it.what has been said.And the onus is on proof and evidence.At the moment, we have information that Andrew lied, obviously, to the BBC, to Emily Maitlis, but that's not a crime.The fact is they've got to prove that Andrew has done the wrongdoing and it's got to be then judged in a court of law.And as it stands, I've got no interest in Andrew Mountbatten -Windsor, none at all, but I do believe in the rule of law and I do believe that it has to be evidence -based.

And he has consistently said he is innocent of these accusations.And I would say also what we knew in 2010 when this story first broke and the photographs of Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein in Central Park were first published, what we know now we didn't know then.

We've got other topics, it's a really busy week this week, but you worked at Buckingham Palace around 2010.

I did.

Did the late Queen, did Charles, did not the Lord Chamberlain at the time or yourself, did you not know the weight of allegations against Andrew that certainly came out.

Not then at all.And of course, when these newspaper stories were published and the accusations were made, the then Duke of York was asked about them and he denied them, as he still does to date.And you can only act on the information you're given.

There's also issues, I think, that are worth addressing.I do know that, I mean, I'm told that the King, when he was Prince of Wales and Andrew, had many, had at least one long conversation about these allegations, which Andrew denied them directly to the King when he was Prince of Wales.And the point of all this is that if that's the case, you now have an issue going forward with a potential case against Andrew where the King of this country could be called under a subpoenato give evidence in his own court, which he can't do under the law because the case is brought in the name of the crown.So the very fact that there has been interaction between somebody who could be charged and the king of the country means that a case In this country, if you were Andrew's lawyer, you could argue that he can't get a fair trial because you can't call witnesses.And if a key witness is the king, the current king, a case cannot be brought against Andrew because he can't bring that evidence.

And we saw that in the case with the Paul Burrow case, which was dropped.because of the fact that the Queen would record a conversation with Burrell and the case collapsed because the Queen could not be called as to give evidence in her own court.So there's a long way to go with this and I think everyone should tread fairly carefully when talking about cover -ups and other things and charges because as it stands it has to be evidence -based and it has to go past the Crown Prosecution Service to even bring it to trial.and we're a long way from that.

So his stories on Newsnight has turned out to be false.He did keep in touch with Epstein.So he was therefore telling the rest of the family and therefore the staff that...

Yeah, he lied.We know he lied.But you cannot convict someone and send them to prison for lying to the BBC.Otherwise, half the people in the Parliament would probably be in prison.So the fact of it is, we live in a society where you're innocent until proven guilty.but contempt, actually, for entering Mountbatten -Windsor.

But everyone in this country deserves a fair trial, and you're going to get it.until proven guilty.And the evidence is what it's all about, irrefutable evidence.And as it stands, we don't know.what the evidence is because it's not been put before us in a court of law.

There has been criticism in recent weeks that the late Queen was maybe too soft on Andrew or that Andrew was a blind spot and now it's Charles that has stood up and done what he needed to do by kicking him out and getting rid of his titles.You worked with them for many years.Did the late Queen have a blind spot for Andrew?Is that why we're in a mess now?

think she did.I never saw her treat any of her children differently.I mean they all work in silos, they might all work in Buckingham Palace, but they each have an individual private office, they have their own engagements, they have their own set of charities, packages, so it's fairly dysfunctional may I say.So I certainly didn't see the late Queen having Andrew as her favourite.And as I said earlier, what we knew in 2010 was not what we know today.We know far much more about what went on, especially after the notorious BBC Newsnight interview, than we did then.

Some figures have come out this week about Andrew's time working as a UK trade envoy.He accumulated more than £2 million in taxpayer -funded expenses.His annual costs jumped by 15 % a single year.Was Andrew good at his job as a trade envoy?

in certain countries and in certain circumstances, he was.You know, he could open doors as a British member of the royal family, especially in countries in the Middle East, for example, where politicians simply couldn't do it.So I think in that aspect, yes, he was good at his job.I don't know what you think, Rob.

Well, I mean, we get in various different reports from the civil servants who had to work alongside him.I think we're confusinghis behaviour.and his character with the job that he did.I think the job that he did was fairly satisfactory.Prior to him doing it, it was the Duke of Kent who was...

Actually, I went on a couple of trips with him and he used to do a very good job as well.And in similar ways, opening doors and representing the country.But I think that the problem now is that Andrew's seen as a pariah.The fact that he's lied and he's associated with Epstein Tarnishes everything that he's done before and I think in all honesty, that's probably unfair.You know, this was a guy that was a Hero pilot in the in the Falklands war and he did, you know other good works along the way but that the reality is this relationship with this convicted pedophile his lack of judgment, which is appalling and and his lack of Lack of honesty means that we judge him rightly in a very bad way.We look at him now as somebody that, frankly, the royal family don't want anything to do with.

They want him as far away from them as possible.

But the problem is, Rob, people knew about these allegations about Andrew a long, long time ago.

He was representing the government in Britain.The point of it is, he denied them to not only to his brother and his mother and every member of the royal household.And therefore, unless then somebody comes forward, as they have just done now, like the Thames Valley Police, and investigate it, and then look to arrest him to get information.They haven't charged him, but they've arrested him under caution.You know, what was the late Queen Charles and those civil servants working and courtiers working on deciding what he was supposed to do, what they were supposed to sort of shop him and say this iswe think is a wrong and It's it's not gonna wasn't gonna happen in that order.

It had to happen in the order.It's happened now The big argument is why is it taken so long?for charges for this investigation to get off the ground.I mean, it seems preposterous it's taken so long.If you look at the relationship that he was having with Epstein and walking through the park and photographs being taken, well, we know this guy was a convicted pedophile.And his explanation was frankly a lie.

He said he just went there to break off the relationship.He was there.for days, you know, staying at the hospitality at Epstein and having a special dinner in his honour.So we all know that both he and Sarah continued the relationship.And that is a serious problem for their reputations.But is it evidence of a crime?

We have to wait and see.We have no evidence of a crime.

But people knew what he was like in this era.People knew his behaviour.Not talking criminal behaviour, but they knew that he was rude.To Andrew, they knew that he was rude to people.They knew his behaviour, they knew his demands and stuff like that when he was UK Trade Envoy.And I'm just surprised that we're only saying now that it was a silly appointment and he shouldn't have had that job.

I think that he wasn't the only...The current king was against it.and thought it was a poor decision.He knew it and knew his brother probably better than most.Yeah, you could probably criticise, and people are now criticising the late Queen, to say, oh, that she wanted it to go through.Well, to be fair to her, she probably wanted her son, who was leaving the Royal Navy, to have a constructive role and a purposeful job to do.

And somebody who had been at that seniority in the royal family, who had travelled the world representing her, she probably thought would be somebody that could do a good job.

And the head of the UK trade department actually said, yes, I think this is a good appointment.So not only did it come from the household, but it also came from the guy who was running the department.

But I think that probably, if you look at it now, obviously when you look at it with hindsight, you know, hindsight is 20 -20, it was a poor appointment because, as the The King had pointed out, as the Prince was at the time, that he thought that his brother was character, his lack of depth, maybe, in terms of his diplomatic position.He probably needed to do more on the royal side than necessarily get involved in government.But, you know, this was something...The Duke of Kent was coming to the end of his time and it was a position that was held by a member of the royal family up until that point and it was seen as a natural progression.

Okay well look now Andrew or Sarah, neither Andrew or Sarah are going to go to this Saturday's royal wedding, our first royal wedding for six years I think since Beatrice and Edo.famously at Royal Lodge during Covid times.But we've got a big Royal Wedding on Saturday, Andrew and Sarah aren't going.We're going to see the King, we're going to see the Queen, we're going to see Catherine, we're going to see William, we're going to see the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, we're going to see Tim Lawrence and of course Princess Anne, the mother of the groom.Mike and Zara are going, Beatrice and Ed are going.Is this a time for the Royal Family to celebrate?

perhaps close ranks, a show of support, a show of unity with Andrew and Sarah outside.What are you looking forward to about this royal wedding?

Well I mean congratulations to Peter Phillips, he's actually a very nice guy, I've interviewed him and it's great that after he's failed marriage he's now able to find happiness and she seems a lovely lady.I think that what we've lookedat is the king again leading his family in this new generation, this new time, and having a celebration of something that's actually positive and happy.So I think that we'll be looking for that.We'll be looking at interaction between Beatrice and Eugenie and their cousins.I think a lot of the cameras will be trained, not necessarily on the bride, unfortunately, but on Catherine, because she gets more and more attention as things move along.

But I think that it is a moment for the Royal Family.We haven't had a gathering of this magnitude.amount for some time and i think it's a time i'm sure that the likes of you and i will and other people will be watching for those interactions to see who's talking to who but keeping harry and uh you're shaking your head also he is such you're such a bloke the women will be watching who's wearing what what the hats are what the trousers are what the skirts are um yeah well i'm talking about the interactions between the cousins because there's no harry and megan there pretty obviously that wasn't going to happen, I think, and that would have taken up the whole of the charade.But I do think that there'll be quite a lot of people watching to see how Beatrice and Eugenie are fitting in.

Is it a united family at the moment?Not particularly, I don't think so.Why, Elsa?

Well, one of the two of the key players and you know, you can't say you've got a united family when the two, the king's sons, one of them's there, the other one's not.

But then there's a show of unity on Saturday.I mean, you've got the whole family there.You've got Peter and Harriet, you know, having the whole important members of the royal family coming out for a big celebration.

It'll be very different.So I did the PR for their last wedding, for Peter Phillips' last wedding to Autumn.And that was a spectacular affair.That was at St George's Chapel in Windsor, lots of media in attendance, the whole family, as you rightly said, and the reception afterwards was the first time actually that the Queen met Catherine.Oh, really?So, you know, it was a huge, huge deal.

They showed that down low, didn't they?They did, indeed.

They're not doing that this year.

So this will be a very different affair, I think much more private.Obviously it's at the parish church, so they would have had to have a special licence from the Archbishop of Canterbury and then the reception at Gatcombe.So it will be a very different feel, but hugely joyous.I mean, who doesn't love a wedding?

What role do you think Peter and Harriet could play?Because I remember Harriet and Peter both turned up at the Easter service with Harriet's teenage daughter.which he was hanging around with Mike and Zara's children.Is there a role in the role for Harry?

I don't think Peter Phillips would want that.Or Harriet.

Or Harriet.

I think that we'll get them in photographic or family situations, that they'd be part of that.But I really don't think that...I mean, Peter Phillips has sort of made a royal career of avoiding the attention.I think he does it quite well.

One of the most famous things I remember of Peter in recent years, he stood in between Harry and William at Prince Philip's funeral on the march.He was almost like the bouncer or the peacemaker.I mean, could he have a role in that?

could do I really like Peter Phillips I think he's a really really nice guy and you know this is a modern family you know it's a blended family which I think reflects on modern society but I think he could have a role as a reconciler but I think he's just going to focus on his own life really.Why aren't Harry and Meghan there?I think it would be very unwise for Harry and Megan to have been invited, because as Rob said, you know, that would have been the story.It wouldn't have been about the wedding.That would have been the story.They're clearly not close anymore.

I don't know how they're going to get back together.

Lack of security, I don't know.

Maybe, yeah.Maybe they couldn't afford it.

I mean, to be fair, they wouldn't want...I mean, I think it would be completely wrong to take the whole shine away from the bride and the groom, and it's their day.It's not Harry and Meghan's day, is it, really?I mean, if they'd turned up, we'd just be looking only at that one thing.Yeah.

Okay now as a regular feature on our show we always get to the stage after we talked about the constitutional issue of what happens to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and the family getting together for a wedding and the joyous occasion of unity where we get to talk about Megan's as ever which this week this week it's about candles.I don't know about you guys but when people buy me a candle for like Christmas or birthday my kind of heart sinks I think well you really don't know me well I know who you well I've got loads of interest why have you bought me a candle um but Megan has um some very expensive candles on a as ever uh lifestyle brand now and the look this the the interesting thing here is that 10 years ago, and we've all said things 10 years ago, I'm sure that if you came back it might bite you if you recorded it, but Megan was talking about her TIG blog and she said, there are no $100 candles on my site, that's so obnoxious.However, on As Ever, she is selling candles for more than £100, $110 for a morning ritual and evening ritual sets, cozy duo sets for $128.Do you hold her account for what she said 10 years ago?

I think it's pretty hypocritical.

But you know to say that and the first rule of PR is actually check what you've said previously before you do a sort of a 360 degree turn so it does soundincredibly hypocritical.And who would want to buy a candle for that much money anyway?

Well, maybe she'll send you one, Matt.

I think it's a sign of someone not liking me if they send me a candle.I mean, look, does, I suppose, the need for money maybe change your principles?

Well, you know, there's been inflation, so you could argue that the candle prices have gone up.But bottom line is, yeah, she's a hypocrite, but she's not the first time that she's said something and gone completely against it, is it?

I'm sure her advisors will be rolling their eyes.Heaven was hearing about this latest one.

Well, they'll probably say, you know, that it's just the way the thing has developed.When she was doing the TIG, it was a completely different audience, and it was a completely different time.prior to her marrying into the royals and cashing in on the title, I suppose.Well, she needs to make money.Yeah, well, they've done pretty well at making money on the back of monetising the royal family since they left, so I'm not surprised by it.

Is she changing it?It's only a candle.I keep telling myself it's only a candle, but is this just emblematic of her changing her principles over time because she needs money?

It certainly seems that way.

Yeah, I think that without doubt that she is I think both her and Harry will always, they'll take the next gig and if it means showing themselves up for what they've said before, I don't think it makes much difference.

Have they always been like this, or do you think things have changed since they left the royal family?Do you think this has always been the way that they act or that they run their businesses?

Well, the Harry that I knew and worked for is a very different Harry to how I see now.And he was the media's darling, even more so, I think, than William was back in the day.He was the cheeky chappy.He was the guy that the media gravitated towards.He was sort of the fun -loving.He was the army hero.

And I think he really has changed, sadly.And I know he's still working.respected.all the work he does with the Invictus Games.But it's all this drip feeding of negativity, him constantly having a media, it's money making, it's sort of the, you know, the lack of judgment.And almost, it's you know, since he's been married, it's almost his voice has been taken away from him and the personality that he had has completely disappeared.

Or his advisors are not as good.And the reality is he's off the leash.Before, he was pretty well advised, I think.When he was a prince, he had to operate within a system, within the grid.And as soon as he's been let off the leash and does his own thing, you know, who'd want to necessarily be an advisor to him because he doesn't seem to take any advice.

I'm not entirely sure how much they care anymore about criticism.

No, I don't think they do.I think what they care about is how much money they're making.

This is my point.Now, still on candles, you'll be happy to hear.Four candles.We haven't quite got to jam yet.Yeah, we're still on candles.This is genuinely quite serious because I did cover a story about six or seven years ago where the pair had sent a letter to a superfan thanking them for raising money.

It turned out that this online superfan had sent some abusive messages on Twitter, as it was then, about Catherine and about the royal family.She was a proper sussy.and they'd sent a thank you kind of letter for all the work they'd done.Megan's done it again.They've sent a $300 care package from a lifestyle brand.Care package, I think, means... candles and incense rather than anything else, who has been openly critical of the Prince and Princess of Wales, the fan who goes by the name Notorious JTB, who says she's completely stunned to receive the gift and a handwritten note from Meghan, which is very personal.

This user had previously reposted TikTok commentary criticising Williamand Catherine and complaining about the mediocrity of the Princess of Wales after her trip to Italy.There is this element, isn't there, Rob, called the Sussex Squad that are so supportive of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.And they're a pretty nasty bunch.Should Meghan, particularly in this case, appear to be showing support to these kind of people?

Of course you shouldn't.The reality is, you know, if these people are abusive online to Catherine and William, and have been proven to be so, you know, they should not be sending them gifts saying, thank you so much for your support.It just...Are they stone deaf?You know, are they completely deaf to the actual message?the whole way this would be perceived.

I mean, I'm amazed.I'm sure their PR people, if they were advising them, would say, what on earth are you doing?But as I say, I don't necessarily think they listen too much.And they just look at... clicks and they look at how much influence they can get and how much money they can make.

It's almost like rewarding bad behaviour, isn't it?Oh, they've done something really negative about my brother -in -law and sister -in -law, so I'm going to send them a gift.You know, well done them.

Yeah, they'll probably say, oh no, we're just thanking her for something that she did, you know, or the person did for us.But, you know, it just does, it smacks of, it just smacks of rewarding bad behaviour, as you said, yeah.

Well, I mean, the Sussex Squad, I think I've blocked a lot of them, so I don't actually hear many anymore.But why is there such a situation where there are basically trolls?backing Meghan and Harry so much to attack other members of the royal family.

It really did blow up about the time of all the racism allegations and stuff like that it really did lead to a sort of polarisation and then we had all the stories about the you know the wedding andthe flower girl stuff, all of this.And that polarised a lot of these people online.And frankly, I mean, they're obsessive.And I think there's a degree of that obsessive behaviour online sometimes.

Have you ever seen this kind of clash between opposing royal fans before?Was it like that with Charles and Diana or anything like that?

I think certainly when I joined the Royal Household in 2001, there was an element in the then Prince of Wales' household where they would... leak negative stories about other members of the royal family to big up the Prince of Wales.And there was certainly...

Well, Diana did it as well.

Harry's always made those allegations, hasn't he, that that happened?

Yeah.

Well, it did happen, yeah.I mean, when I was around, you know, 91, at the middle of the War of the Waleses, yeah, there was, but there wasn't the online presence there, you know, so therefore you didn't get, you know, the most you'd get for people that had a beef was you'd get a letter in green ink addressed to the news desk, you know.I used to do that.Which was like, you know, I say greening because there used to be these endless letters that were mad as, you know, madness.And now people can do it online.

And they're one step away from actually having to confront someone.So anyone can do it.

Yeah, well, they're anonymous.That's the other thing, practically.

I'm just wondering if Megan just wanted to get rid of some of her stock.

Well, you know, she can always send us all a...She can send us all a...Care package.At some Royal Exclusive, she can send us a candle.I'll stick it in the middle of the little note.

I don't know.If they were watching and they wanted to send us a candle, we would definitely put the candle on here.Frogmore Cottage.

Is it cursed?Is it haunted?Didn't someone say it was haunted as well?I don't know.I think that when they spent all that money renovating it, making it into one property, there's now talk that it might be...reverted back.

So it's not Crown Estate, it's owned by the Windsor Estate, owned by the Royal Family and they are now reviewing reversing the renovations.So Harry and Meghan spent £2 .4 million.It was a big thing at the time to turn it into this forever family home.They were there for less than nine months.And then they went to America, finally evicted.And it's been empty ever since.

Even Prince Andrew has turned it down.Oh, sorry, Andrew Macbeth in Windsor has turned it down.And now they're probably just going to go back to pre -2019.

But it used to be a number of cottages, didn't it?And that's the point.They could then put staff out of a a certain level into those cottages to actually give this, you know, big house, which is now Big Vernon, to somebody in the Royal Household or even to rent it out might be the best thing, but they don't seem to be getting too many takers.Maybe people aren't overly enamoured with it.I mean, it does seem to be quite a rambling cottage, doesn't it?And even when it was being developed, it didn't actually look that impressive.

So I don't know, maybe keeping it as it originally was laid out might have been the best plan.

So 2023 the King evicted them, it's three years on, did he need to evict them?Because no one else, they're not needed the house for any other reason.

It was their decision, if you remember, to not be working members of the royal family anymore.They wanted half in, half out.And that just wouldn't have worked.So it was their decision to leave the UK.So I think the King was right.Yeah, absolutely.

But he could have left it, as I say.He could have said, you've got a home here if you want, and it's on the estate, therefore you've got the police.There I mean, you know, I think it's all about the look at the time The PR was very much saying you can't have your cake and eat it Harryso if you know you can't keep the property and go and live in a mansion in Montecito or wherever he was going at that time.So I think it was all about the look.If you think about it if he wanted a relationship with his grandchildren it would have been easier if he just said look you know we've got this property we'll leave it you know you can use it when you want to use it and that way I get to see my grandkids.

But there would still be the issue about security.and personal protection, whether the property was there for them or not.

They would be, but I'm sure that the way it's worked out at Windsor, there's quite a lot of police officers on parade around the castle and around the grounds.I'm sure something could be worked out.

And William would have moved in just round the corner, remember?

There would be a chance of reconciliation.There's no chance of a reconciliation whatsoever.One party's in California and the others are over here.It's just not going to happen.And Charles has pretty much no relationship with his grandchildren whatsoever.He's barely seen them, really.

Let's go back to the original question.What's wrong with Frogmore Cottage?Is it cursed?Andrew does want to move there.Didn't work out for...Harry and Meghan, and now they're having to reverse all the renovations.

But I think Andrew didn't want to move out of Royal Lodge.I don't think any property that had been offered to him, he wouldn't have wanted to go because he liked the status of Royal Lodge with its 30 rooms and grand surroundings.

Mind you, he would have been slightly better than the one he's got now.I think he probably made an error there.But the bottom line is, I think that we don't know what's going to happen with Andrew.but it almost feels like Sandringham's a holding bay, doesn't it?

He's under house arrest at the moment, pending...

Well, you know, have you been up in Sandringham late at night?It can be quite a quiet place to contemplate life.

Do you...Just thinking of Frogmore Cottage...do you think it was the right or the wrong place for the late Queen to send Harry and Meghan while they were working royals?Because it hasn't worked out.

I think they wanted them to be next to William and Kate, and to be all at Kensington Palace.I think that was the, and all under that roof is what I think they wanted.But if you remember at the time, the split was, it was so ecumonious that there was no way that Meghan and Harry wanted to be next to William and Catherine.I mean, I think it was simple as that.They were offered this property and they took it straight away.

And of course, Meghan in her Oprah interview did say how much she didn't like Nottingham Cottage in the Kensington Palace confines.

I think they offered a much bigger apartment right next to it.

But they didn't want to do it.

They didn't want to do it and so that would have probably been the wisest thing to have done is to have waited and got that.You know, Nottingham Cottage, yeah, understandably, was quite tiny and they probably felt, you know, but I think that was only a, you know, that was only a temporary thing anyway.So I think that everyone was in a bit of a rush at that time.You've got to remember the late Majesty was still alive.And the King, I'm sure, if he had been, you know, if they'd waited a couple of years, everything would have been resolved in a different way.and probably to their satisfaction, but they seemed to be in a bit of a hurry.

They couldn't, you know, all this nonsense about why were Lilibet and Archib Prince and Princess at the time.Well, it was all stated down, you know, it was quite clear.You had to wait until the King was King and then they would have been made Prince and Princess.There was nothing being hidden from them, but they showedeither a complete lack of intellect or a complete lack of patience.

One of the things that Harry has been accused of having a lack of patience and intellect about is security.And we're still waiting to hear back whether he's going to get his taxpayer armed security.But I've got to ask, guys, what's going on with the police officers at the Royal Palaces at the moment?Because we had a Sunfront page a couple of weeks ago that there was an investigation into Windsor Castle static police officers for falling asleep.on the job and now we've reported, I think it's five police officers, five police officers, armed police officers at Kensington Palace, which is, although William and Kate don't live there full -time, it's still their office, they still use it, other royals do actually use it.They've now been suspended for misogynistic comments, for, you know, pretty desperately bad behaviour and led to believe that actually Kensington Palace staff, you know, William William and Kate's staff do not want these officers to come back.

But what's going on with security of our Royals at the moment?

I do think it's absolutely extraordinary.And certainly when I was in the House, I was there for 13 years, I found the Royal Protection Officers to be absolutely highly professional, polite, courteous.And actually, they were really a dream team to work with.But I wonder whether this is systematic of the Metropolitan Police's reputation at the moment.The Met Police seem to be getting it in the neck in lots of circumstances, quite rightly, about inappropriate comments, inappropriate behaviour.and their conduct of service.

So I wonder if it's just a, you know, it's a reputation problem for the service itself.

Well, I think there's a big difference between, you know, the personal protection officers who are with RASP.

Yeah, let's just point out that it's not the personal protection officers that you see.

It's the backups.And it used to be SO14, these guys are an elite squad, you know, and I've got nothing butcompliments for them, and my dealings with them have always been very curious.I think that any group of, these are the static police officers, the uniformed police officers, they're obviously in a group together, it becomes a bit of a buddies situation going on there, and it's obviously got out of hand.You know, we live in a very different world now from even 10, 15 years ago, and people rightly are not going to put up with some of the nonsense that they put up with in the past.Seems that these officers have not, you know, moved with the times, and they've got to, and it does seem rather odd to me, given that the amount of training and the amount of the amount of information that passed on to these officers that this should actually be happening in 2026.

I mean, I would have thought they would have realised that that simply cannot happen.And, you know, there's obviously a group that have been found out.

What does it say about the way that William and Catherine run their house, their office, their, you know, their base at Kensington Palace, that they have literally said, no matter what, you know, what you do to these officers under their investigation, they're not coming back to the palaces?

Well, I don't think that should be their choice, to be perfectly honest, I really don't.I think that the security, you can't on the one hand say security is completely separate from the royal family, and the decisions are made by the Metropolitan Police and the Commissioner, and then start dictating what officers can be on duty.I think that there's no chance any of these officers will return to that duty, you know, because there's no way that the Commissioner and that he's operatives and the people in charge of that department of RASP would even allow it.But it's not up to the Royal to start dictating who's in charge of security and how security operates.

If they have.But on the other hand, it does show a duty of care to those who work for the Prince and Princess of Wales.that they're actually concerned about their welfare.So I think...

That wouldn't have happened if they did say that.I mean, in Scotland, I wouldn't allow that to happen anyway.I mean, I think that the reality is we really should be quite distinct, because the guys you see, you know, actually, I think, do the really difficult task of protecting the members of the royal family as a personal protection officer are very different to a group of guys that were clearly, you know, acting inappropriately and I think that's a very, very important distinction.

One thing I was thinking when I was working on the story, two weeks in a row when I was working on the story, what jumped out to me was the fact that Kensington Palace is not really used by William and Catherine.Windsor Castle's not really used like it used to be when the late Queen would be there every weekend and it would be used regularly.So these officers don't really have much to do because the big royals are not going to Windsor Castle and Kensington Palace.

Well, I mean, Windsor probably a bit more because you have the investitures are there and all sorts of things going on.So I think that you do have more presence with the King at Windsor.But yeah, look, the reality is Kensington Palace is not as it was.I mean, when Princess Diana was living there, Princess Margaret was living there, the Kents, the Gloucestershire, all of these people were there.And so that control command post was actually a very busy spot.

Now a final story to talk about this week and it comes with an allegedly, more allegedly than the Andrew Mountbatten Windsor allegations we were making earlier, but I read this week that Prince William occasionally dons disguises when he goes drinking with his group of friends, he grows and shaves his beards regularly, wears glasses and this is the best bit, he puts on an iffy Welsh accent and drinks Stella.in a bid to not being seen when he's out socialising.

I think more than anything else.How can you disguise yourself by shaving your beard and then grow it back?

How do you do that?

Unless you've got a fake beard like something out of a comedy show, a carry -on show.I can't see how that one would work.And also, the fake...What is a fake Welsh accent?Don't do one.I was just...

When you brought this up, I was thinking, is this April Fool's Day?Because I can't imagine how you can disguise, you know, how a woman can disguise herself, really.

Rob's a cynic, but could you see William doing this?Could you see him disguising himself if he wanted to go out and have a beer with the lads?

No.

Okay.

But I do think, I think he's quite happy to be seen, and we've seen it in football matches, to go with his mates and have a laugh and have a drink and be photographed.

Diana used to wear wigs, you know, she used to wear dark wigs.You know, Princess Michael of Kent, when she was seeing her American friend, was wearing a big, big black wig.So I think that ladies have done it in the past.But if William decided to go around with a a wig on, I think that would be a hell of a story, a great photograph.

And also, how do you grow your beard back overnight?

I don't know.I would recognise William if he didn't have a beard, or if he did have a beard, because that's what he looks like.

If he wore a wig...They put a hat on.Then it might be different.

But we'll just fold this down to the allegedly.I think this is a very allegedly.File it in the allegedly file and wait till we get photographic evidence.Right, we've just got time for our quickfire questions, everybody.So take a deep breath.Now, Princess Lilibet turns five years old on Thursday.

But what would you buy her for her birthday?

One of her mother's candles, obviously.

No, I'd buy her a big Paddington bear.that's I think because it's a reminder of the original Lilibet but also this is a nice sort of keepsake for her.

And very British.

Well it just reminds her of the late Queen doesn't it.Just a reminder of that wonderful combinationwith Paddington Bear, who is real, and the Queen over the sea.

Just quickly on this, do we call her Lilibet or Lily?Because I see that Meghan often on social media calls her Lily.

Yeah.

They finally backed down now.

Interesting, isn't it?Anyway, question number two.The King, Queen and Princess of Wales attended a reception for the 125th anniversary of Cancer Research UK this week.But which royal trio would you like to see work together more?

I think the King, the Prince of Wales and Prince George.

Yes.

And that's a really key message of the monarchy continuing endlessly and seamlessly.So that's my trio.

Me, I think if just for just the sheer numbers, I think I'd like to see Harry, William and Kate working together more regularly.

Yeah, well one day, eh?What about Harry, Andrew and Sarah?Heads together all over again.No, not Andrew, Sarah and Harry.Andrew, Sarah and Harry, yeah.That would be like an axe slayer.

That wouldn't be reported, would it?

Final question.President Trump is hosting a UFC fight in the White House or outside the White House.Which sporting event would you like to see at what royal building and why?

I think darts.Darts at Buckingham Palace.And if they missed, it would hit a portrait.So, yeah, definitely darts.

Good answer.

Well, there's been lots of things that actually have been staged at Buckingham Palace.One, I mean, there was the football match that the Queen allowed them to have a football match on the back lawn, as it were, in commemoration of the first football match that was played under the FA.And we've had tennis matches.We have.

I played tennis at Buckingham Palace.

But didn't they have a star tennis match?We did.We even had Boris Johnson training during Covid at Buckingham Palace.So I think I'd like to see a big sort of boxing match on the front of on the front of the...Harry and William again.It'd be quite a good way to sort it out, wouldn't it?

I'd like to see, whenever you go to the garden parties at Buckingham Palace, I always think this would make a great cricket pitch.It would make a great village cricket pitch.

Years ago, when my little boy was very tiny, the Queen had, for a...Jubilee had all that, a big event.

It was a children's literature party.

On the forecourt was Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and there was all these sort of things going on.

Mr. McGregor's Garden.

And there was Beatrice Potter's.And all I remember is this going on and my son, who's only a little, going, this is quite a good place this, isn't it?I'd like to come again, thinking it was like, you know, like a Disney World for royals.

Awesome, alright well thanks guys, appreciate that, thanks for coming.Right, that's all we have time for on this week's Royal Exclusive.Thanks to my guests Elsa and Robert and thanks to you as always for watching.But if you don't want the debate to end there, well I've got some good news for you because we are launching a new Royals newsletter, so look out for that.And as always remember to comment and subscribe to us here on our Royal Exclusive YouTube channel for the latest Royal news.We'll see you next week.