Welcome to the learning report where we're in an actionpacked week which has seen both Peter Mandlesson and Andrew Mattbatton Windsor arrested and calls for the king to abdicate. We'll be looking at some of the stories which go back many years in how Andrew has been able to monetize his position in the royal family and how Sarah Ferguson abused her position as married to Prince Andrew. >> Brilliant. Well, before we we rewind to the beginning of this story, Andrew, how perilous do you think the king's position is given the events of the last week? >> I think the king's position is very perilous. I mean, if it can be shown that he was complicit in covering up Andrew's activities, not just turning a blind eye, but actually embedded it, then I think they're going to be calls for him to to step down to to to have a sweet a clean sweep and allow William to to take over. And I mean, a number of people have been calling for this on radio shows. I thought it was very revealing that David Dimbley, a respected royal commentator, has been quite critical of the king. And I think even more importantly that the BBC put a series of questions to the palace, very obvious questions about their knowledge of Andrew's activities and when they knew what and what they did about it and the palace refused to answer. And in, you know, the current climate, this is not really the way to deal with the crisis. So I think we just need a little bit more information coming out and the king is going to be in big trouble. Big play has been made the fact that he saw an email in 2019 about David Roland and Andrew's association. But the fact is these stories have been in the press now for 15 years. There have been plenty of opportunities for the royal family to address this issue. Moments for example when Andrew was to have taken over a million pounds unexplained from Salman Turk in 2022 10 when Sarah was caught selling access to Andrew by the news of the world. Why wasn't anything done then? Why has it taken the leaks of the last few weeks for actually the royals to actually do anything about their problem? >> And what do you think Charles should have done when he received that email in 2019? >> Well, I think when when Charles received that email, he should have had a full investigation about these links. He should have disciplined his brother saying this is not what we do. We're about public service, not about private gain, and ensured that it couldn't happen again. I mean there have been ways in the past that that people in the royal circles who were seen as not very pretty dubious were kind of pushed out and I think he should have used his influence on Andrew and indeed possibly on Roland to make sure that this money-making activity on the side was stopped. >> So in your book you mention an email from Andrew to an associate where he mentions that Charles may be involved in in a property deal with Invenesse Asset Management. Did you find out any more about that? >> No, very difficult to research. I mean, Johan Elishesh is is very close to Andrew as well as David Roland. So, I mean, those are the two errors I was looking at. But, I mean, it's very easy to disguise company accounts, not to have to to produce proper company accounts, which is what happened here. Uh, and so we just don't know what they were doing, where the money was coming from, and actually even how much money was coming in. very very difficult unless you have access to bank accounts etc to to see how it all works but I mean that is clearly a huge new area for investigation and maybe the police will be looking into that >> and talking of companies it's been reported in the last week that Sarah Ferguson has closed all of her companies in the UK I think five in total what's your reaction to that >> well I've been monitoring Sarah's accounts for a long time I mean she had numerous company accounts none of which produced proper audited accounts the suspicion was that they were being used for money laundering and uh she's actually shut down quite a few since the autumn. I mean the last six I think may have gone in the last few weeks but very very suspicious when I talk to forensic accountants why you should have so many many of them completely redundant but having having confirmation statements put each year some of them go back 20 or 30 years. So I I think HMRC should be investigating Sarah, perhaps even the National Crime Agency because clearly there was something that was not above board going on with these accounts. >> And is it only HMRC that can dig into that? Is there anything that citizen journalists can do to understand or is it deliberately opaque? >> I think it's very difficult for anyone to look into them. I actually got sort of mapping experts who are forensic accountants to sort of look across the board and see if there were patterns of behavior of directors who came you know for example directors of one company what they were doing in other companies whether there were hidden companies looking at for example directors with the same birth date or or a variation of the name. She often had companies under the name Margaret York. He had them under the name Andrew Invenesse. So, but even then very very difficult to to work out what was going on. I mean these people were very skilled in what they're doing. The people who could answer this are people like Arthur Lancaster who's Andrew's accountant who's been reported several times for his activities with clients a tax watch who keep a a pretty close watch on him u who was the accountant for Baroness. So he's got all sorts of people around him who are used to getting around the system. And do you think it's surprising that figures like David Roland, Arthur Lancaster, David Stern have not been arrested? >> Well, I think it's very surpris I would be very surprised if they're not at least questioned. I mean, they're clearly accessories to what was going on. I'm amazed that they've I mean, they've never given a course statements. They' never spoken to anyone, refused to didn't answer me when I contacted them. Yes, I mean, they know a lot and I think they clearly need to be questioned and they may well be a case against them like Andrew. And what's the law at the moment for them destroying documents? So, can can they be kind of destroying things liberally now? Do we have to wait till they're arrested before there's a kind of stop on what they're able to to get rid of? >> Well, I think they've destroyed all the documents. I mean, Andrew, I understand, has been destroying them for the last 2 months. So, I I suspect we're not going to find much. I mean, the shredders have been operating, I'm sure, in Whitel, too, now that the Department of Trade and the Foreign Office have been asked to produce some some paperwork about Andrew's appointment. So I'm afraid, you know, a lot of the stuff will be lost if it was ever recorded in the first place. You know, one can hope that perhaps things can be recovered from hard drives or from other people who received information. But I think it's going to be really hard to mount a case against some of these people just because they have perverted the course if they have perverted the course of justice >> and and that theme of destroying records we see throughout, don't we? So we've heard that records of the protection officers have been destroyed. It was also reported a few days ago that the Stanstead airport records may have been destroyed in terms of that that sex trafficking investigation. So we know that Andrew emailed from multiple email addresses including the invisible man address which he used to correspond with Kain Maxwell about women in Peru. I think do you have any idea of how many other email addresses he may have used and how techare he is? So do you think he would have had the knowhow to destroy potential electronic evidence in anticipation of the police raid last week? >> Yeah. Well, Andrew is quite technical. He uh was an early adopter of email and used it a lot. I don't know. I mean, I was interested to see all the email addresses he had. I was only aware of the official one because clearly I didn't see emails in the course of my research. But I think if he has destroyed material there, I understand that stuff can be recovered from hard drives. I mean, things have understand buried in the garden apart from papers being shredded, but who knows? But I mean, we've always found, as we did with the Epsteed files, that there's there's often another source of this material and he will have shared information with a whole series of people and if if the police can recover that material from other accessories, should we say, then, you know, they may be able to build a case. >> We're now starting to see more whistleblowers come forward. So there was obviously the story in the mail on Sunday with Isabelle Oakshot about the person who had written to Charles and I think in the last couple of days we've also had two protection officers who have come forward and spoken. Are you seeing that too? Are you getting a lot more of these people now coming to you particularly in the last couple of weeks? >> Yes, absolutely. I had a protection officer who wasn't prepared to speak to me before who came to me I think on Monday morning when I was at Good Morning Britain. I've had someone from involved with Andrew's banking activities who's just come to me. Yeah, a lot lots of stuff. I mean, a lot of people involved on the periphery of some of these business activities are giving me names of people I need to investigate. So, I've got a lot of new material for the update and a new book. >> So, the timeline is becoming increasingly important here and a lot of people are kind of focusing on that 2011 moment, understandably, because it's when the photo of Virginia Grey was first published, but can you just take us through the earlier timeline? What were the early signs that Andrew and Fergie were abusing their position? >> Well, I think interesting enough, it began very early. There there were stories that Ron Ferguson was selling access to drinks parties attended by his new son-in-law and daughter way back in the mid80s. The couple were very happy to take free accommodation of people while Sunning Hill was being built, including I think the king Hussein of Jordan. There were stories of Fergie basically selling stories to Hello magazine, pictures of Sunning Hill. It was as it was built that always have been sort of verboten. She wrote Budgie that the helicopter and the money didn't go to charity as she claimed and is as usual for the royal family. She actually pocketed it. So I mean the very very early indications that they were beginning to take advantage of their royal status for their own personal benefit. How did the queen react to this initially? I mean you wrote in the book that she turned off the money taps eventually with Sunning Hill when it got more and more expensive. Do you know any ways in which the queen kind of either sat down Andrew and Fergie and just said this is not sustainable your lifestyle? No, I don't think I I'm not aware of her doing that. I mean, she cut off the money tap because she was unprepared to pay any more money to them. She thought they didn't need the helicopter pad and the the the huge bathtub and the the very expensive kitchen. I mean, one of the things they were also doing was trying to to get free goods. So, I think they were trying to get the kitchen for free. But I think the queen kind of just assumed it that they would behave well. I don't know. Just turned a blind eye. But no one really looked into Sarah's extravagance and her debts until the queen had bailed her out at least once to the tune of about5 million pounds and then people were sent in to investigate and to try and reorganize her finances. But she was sort of left to just behave as she wanted. It's extraordinary that there was no no oversight at all given the sort of reputational damage it was beginning to bring in the press. >> And it was one of the private secretaries, wasn't it, that said the Yorks would be the downfall of the royal family. He's been proved right to some extent. >> Absolutely. And I mean, even Princess Margaret was being pretty critical of of Sarah Ferguson very early on, saying, "You've brought more shame on this family than anyone else." This is Princess Margaret, after all. So, I mean, you know, there were internal concerns, but nothing ever done publicly. And it doesn't seem to be anything that the Yorks listened to. I mean, she was entertaining during the Iran Iraq war people who were selling oil to our enemies. and how that was allowed, how she was able to to book the rooms, how things continued like that, how she was able to continue her association with Steve Wyatt, whose father was supplying oil to the Iraqis. I just don't know. Again, just lack of oversight or or or just an assumption that the royals can behave exactly as they want. And talking of Fergie's shamelessness, it was reported over the weekend that she's been staying in the world's most expensive health resort in Switzerland. I think what I thought was interesting about that article is half of it read like a press release for this resort. Do you think there's a chance that she got a freebie there in return for heavily mentioning it when it was brief that she was staying? >> Well, I can tell you the background to that. I actually gave the paper that story from one of my sources. I actually lost one of my sources as a result of that because they were upset that I had leaked the story and then the male went and did some more research. But you're absolutely right. Um I didn't think it was that extraordinary. She'd stayed there before. It was a likely place for her to go. There would have been plenty of people who could have backed up that story who worked there or whatever. But you're absolutely right. It's it's been good publicity for the spa. I'm sure she had a freebie. uh they got more than13,000 pounds a day worth of publicity out of the story. So though I have to take responsibility for leaking that story, it could easily have been leaked by them. >> And can you just give us a rundown of when did we last hear from Fergie? >> Well, we've last saw her at the christristening of her granddaughter which is mid December. So three months ago, two months ago. We've heard stories about where she's been. She's been staying with friends etc. But, you know, clearly they're being very loyal. We just don't know where she is. We know she was spotted in Doha, I think, a few weeks ago visiting, seeing one of her daughters. We think she's been in Switzerland. She's supposed to now be in the UK somewhere. But it's a mystery. But we had this once before. She ran around Southeast Asia at one point when there was a story with her relationship Steve Wyatt broke way before, in fact, she even got divorced. So, this is her habit. She runs away and and secretes herself abroad, often in some exotic holiday destination. >> And how do you think she's funding her life at the moment? >> Well, I've never really bought into the story that either Andrew or Sarah Ferguson are short of money. She's just sold a4 million pound house in Belgravia. There must be some savings even for her from all her business activities. She has very rich mentors who bail her out the whole time and who pay for things and give her things for free. Uh Richard Branson was one, David Tang was another. So Roman Rebraic I suspect certainly gave her free holidays. So I I I suspect there there people who are prepared to hang around her whether she's now completely damaged goods and people do feel there's any benefit from being close to her. So I suspect she has some loyal friends who are taking care of her. >> So we've spoken earlier about Charles. Let's talk about Queen Elizabeth II. What did she know and when and what did she do? >> Well, I'm sure Queen Elizabeth knew an awful lot because she made her a habit to know things. She she had very good informers within the palace. I know from my research on the Duke of Windsor that police protection officers report back to the monarch's private secretary. I was amazed when I looked at Edward's confidential file just how abressed the king was of his brother's activities for example with the Nazis. So I I have no doubt that she if she'd wish to could have been fully apprised of what was going on. A large a large large part of this this difficult period the head of security was the Earl of Roslin who was now the private secretary to the king and Queen Camila very close to to the royal family. So she would have she would have known things. She would made it her business to know things particularly as stories were appearing in the press and she would have wanted to know the background to to and how accurate they were. You've spoken a lot in the last few days about the security angle of this. Can you just take us through why you think that might be the next big shoe to drop? >> Yes, I think the security thing is is a really big issue. I I'm picking up all sorts of stories from my sources. It was interesting to see that Tim Shipman in the last week's spectator diary said it was a national security issue and had been briefed by Whiteall. And in fact, if I look now at a file I've got here, I can actually read out part of it. This is an intelligence report not cleared for release. Political corruption Andrew Mountbatton Windsor it's designated Russian Union date 15th of January 2026 Russian intelligence services have been using Western government infrastructure programs especially green energy subsidiary programs as a source of legitimate revenue which is then repurposed for political corruption operations. RAIS originally developed these networks using figures such as Jeffrey Epstein for access to political and business leaders and to control any possible domestic law enforcement actions. Andrew Mountbatton Windsor was cultivated by IRS to cultivate a figure close to the British royal family as protection for them to conduct both intelligence and corruption operations within EU UK US. Using AMW as a front provided legitimacy to corruption operations worldwide. AMW was not blackmailed or otherwise coerced into this role. It states AMW was a willing participant in these schemes due to financial, sexual and personal reward. This is based on RAIS dossier documents personally seen. So I mean that's very interesting. We've also got a lot of intelligence officials beginning to brief the press. I noticed I not briefing me and you know it's obvious the intelligence services particularly the Russian and Chinese ones could see that the vulnerability into the British state was through the royal family because there was no scrutiny or accountability and there was this greed and so they targeted them. I mean, we've seen Johnny Han, for example, paying Sarah Ferguson large sums of money each year as a director of a company which he really had no knowledge and neither of them being able to explain what actually they did for this money. We've had money clearly. We've we've had the Tenbo, the the alleged Chinese spy being the the the sort of pinpoint person in China for pitch at the palace. We've had stories that I talk about in the book of Andrew having compromat on him in Russia from people like Tim Riley of Cambridge Dawn. So there's plenty of evidence of the national security angle. I had lunch with an intelligence source this week who said this is the next big thing. It's actually worse than I think everyone realizes. So you know this isn't just a story about sex trafficking and financial corruption. It it's about how heavily penetrated the British state has become through the royal family who are meant to represent it. And I suppose Andrew might kind of plead naivity, but he must have started to get an idea as the the years or even decades rolled on what was valuable in terms of what to kind of hand over. To what extent do you think it's naivity and to what extent do you think it was just simple complicity? >> Oh, I think he was greedy. He uh has no moral boundaries. He was operating entirely in his own self-interest and he was giving people like Epstein whatever they wanted. So they would he'd probably say, "I'm going to China. I'm going to meet so and so." And and Epstein would say, "Well, I think it'd be very interesting to know about this or to see that." And Andrew would get it. We saw it with the Islamic banking crisis where he actually requested Treasury briefing documents to pass to David Roland who was buying up an Atlantic bank. I mean, you know, information on the Royal Bank of Scotland during the banking crisis, which clearly would have been very useful to people who were in, you know, buying up assets or or whatever they were doing. So, I don't think you've got to be pretty stupid not to realize the significance of the stuff that you're passing on and how secretive it needs to be. So, I don't think he can claim any sort of defense that he didn't realize or however entitled he is. I mean, he was briefed. He must have been told about the dangers of breaking any confidences. I mean, anyone who goes abroad on any sort of trip is is warned about honey traps and the importance of documents, security, etc. And this was a guy who'd been in the Navy, worked in the Ministry of Defense. I mean, it's inconceivable that he didn't know what he was doing. >> So, to what extent do you think Epstein and Andrew and Mandlesson were shielded by American and British secret services or maybe even used by them? >> Well, intelligence services, you know, do use people. I mean, they debrief them. They can actually set them up often inadvertently as assets and I think that would be very likely. I mean, there were intelligence personnel I know on some of these trips abroad. I've identified them. They've not been able to get them to speak to me. And you know, I've often wondered what they were doing on these trips. Two two different individuals on very different trips from different sources. But certainly the British intelligence services had come across Andrew and Fergie, not because they were looking out for them, but because they were associating with people who were of interest to them. And this would have been reported back to the head of MI6. It would have been reported back to the palace. And I can only assume that the palace ignored these warnings and they in the way that they were ignored with the entertaining these Iraqi oil dealers at Buckingham Palace and the way they ignored the concerns about Peter Mlesson. So I mean that's the problem. We have an intelligence service. They actually were doing their job but no one listened to them. It's back to the politicization of intelligence which we saw with um the dossier in Iraq. So you've described this as a meto moment for the royals. That movement seemed to change the dial and claim many scalps. Do you think the momentum will similarly build here and start to encompass other characters too? >> Yes, I think it is. I think this is the beginning of a new monarchy, reform monarchy, and I hope so. I mean, we've got the public accounts committee now raising questions about crown estates. We've got Liam Burns committee today looking at his role as a trade envoy. We've got the possibility of more parliamentary scrutiny of the royals certainly of Andrew with Lindseay Hy the speaker saying this questions will be allowed. I've got a whole series of questions that I've tabled through various peers which I'm haven't been answered yet but I think if they are answered and answered honestly and openly will be very revealing. So I I I do think this is the beginning of the end for Andrew and I think the beginning of a new start I hope for the monarchy. >> So a lot of people now especially kind of briefing for the palace are saying this proves that nobody even the royal family is above the law. But of course Andrew was arrested as a commoner. He'd had all of his titles removed before he was arrested. So do you think the royal family is still above the law? >> Well I think an interesting question. I hope not. I mean, I hope that if necessary, members of the royal family will be asked to testify if Andrew is charged. There is talk that it's only a convention the sovereign cannot appear in his own courts. I think they're going to clearly try and avoid that. But I don't think anyone should be above the law if they've committed a crime and if there's a material witness to that crime. So I I I do hope that there will be proper parliamentary scrutiny of all of them and this will be a wakeup call for them. But the point I keep making, if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear and they can speak very openly about what they're up to. The the the concern is that they are hiding things, which is why they need to be so secretive. So, one of the things that I found striking in the last few days, there are plenty of shocking revelations in your book, but what's so striking is how many of them were in the public domain. So, for example, you retell the story of Salman Turk, and now in the press, we're getting lots of stories that were stories seven, eight years ago. What do you think that tells us about public amnesia and the challenge of holding people like Andrew to account even when the stories are out there? >> Yeah. Well, it's been very frustrating because I mean, I'm sure for the newspapers who wrote these stories and with the tomorrow's fish and chips and that's going back 15 years, I thought by pulling everything together with my new research and also what have been there in the past that the impact of that would lead to something. It didn't. People kind of questioned my sources and my motives. Uh so it's really just been that you know it almost needs to be said a third time for anyone to take any notice. But clearly there has been a softening up process. The po press have got more emboldened. There's been more social media pressure on the media on parliament and I suspect on law enforcement and so things begin to happen and once things begin to happen it kind of snowballs. I mean the you know people are lemmings and once they see it's safe to come out they jump on the bandwagon. So we now, I mean, having been this rather isolated figure talking about royal transparency, I now find that everyone seems to have been in favor of it and of calling for it. Um, and that's fine. We've reached the tipping point, I think. And this is how why the royal family have lost their the narrative. It was easy to marginalize me, dismiss me, nor me. But when you've got Dave Dimby and other senior figures saying these sort of things, editorials in the papers which were normally supportive of the royal family arguing for change, then something is likely to happen. >> And in your interview with Andrew Morton yesterday, you both spoke about how Diana thought that K Stark would have been a better wife for Andrew. To what extent was Fergie a catalyst for Andrew's descent into greedy oblivion? Was there a change in his behavior or spending habits after they became an item? >> Yes, I think Fergie was a bad influence. Uh, and I think others might have been a better influence in the way I suspect Boness or or or Chelsea Davis or any of these other people might have been a better influence on Harry and that the problem is that the good influences kind of don't want to get involved and the bad influences kind of move in there because they want to kind of reap the benefits of being a member of the royal family and I think that's true of both Fergie and Meghan Markle. So I mean Andrew had always even at Gordon been drawn to the to the super rich, the Nearos family, people with jets, people who could give him a lifestyle he didn't really have in the royal family because there it was picnics while moral and and Tupperware and single bars on the on the fire. Uh and Fergie was very much again, you know, wealthy but not that wealthy but introduced to enormous wealth by Patty McN. And I think they both wanted to continue that and and they kind of fed off each other and because they really had no moral center to them. They were prey to all sorts of unscrupulous people and took advantage of opportunities either they f found them themselves or were presented to them. And that's the problem. They neither of them had very strong moral code. And this is extraordinary because I think Prince Philip and the queen did. But we got to remember that they weren't always there for Andrew. He was brought up by nannies in some ways. You would argue that nannies probably had a stronger moral code, but anyway, because of the maybe the nature of his character, perhaps because he everyone turned a blind eye to his activities from of an early age, he was never really punished for anything he did. So, he learned to get away with things and he kept pushing the envelope. >> How does it change the calculus for you if Andrew is charged? Will that affect the publication of the paperback? Will that affect the things that you're able to publish on Substack or talk about in interviews? Yes, I need to make myself fully aware of what the rules are. But clearly what's in the holdback is is is there in the public domain, but I will have to be careful what I put into a paperback and clearly what I say and I just will have to brief myself to make sure that I don't say anything that would prejudice his trial. I mean, I think it's going to be difficult and this may be one of the arguments they use that he's not going to get a fair trial just because of the speculation and coverage so far. I mean, he's, you know, he's had a great deal of criticism. I mean quite rightly so because of the material that's been released. So I think that's why it's very important the police keep whatever information they've gathered secret so that this material when it's presented in court if he is charged is seen to be completely fresh and independent from anything that's been reported up till now but yeah it's going to be tricky. >> And do you think that it will emerge in the course of the police investigation or the trial the connection to Andrew and Mandlesson? So, do do you think there's a a chance that they may end up being charged for the same crime or similar crimes that they are connected on? >> Well, I think there's a lot of scope for investigation into connections between Mandlesson and Andrew, particularly through their common link, Linda Rothschild and even Rothschild. And I'm intrigued by Mandlesson's early life as a young communist, the fact that Mandlesson was very keen to get Andrew into this job in 2001. So, you know, something may emerge from research, from investigations into into Mandlesson's background and his connections and whether he was sort of inserted into Andrew's entourage because it's a very unlikely pairing, uh, the two of them. So, yeah, I the danger is everyone thinks, this is just, you know, conspiracy. It's just chance. But the more one looks at the story, the bigger the network gets and the more coordinated it seems to get. And you know, we've only seen small bits of it like the Andrea or the epsitude material. And I don't know, it's a bit like a sort of iceberg. We're seeing bits of the iceberg, but as the as this as it thors, we may begin to see more of how it's all linked in underneath.