 The death of Prince Philip has been used by the press to demonstrate their royalist credentials and by politicians to show their undying loyalty and sympathy to the Queen. But what about the royals themselves? Now, of course, I have no doubt the Windsors are genuinely mourning for a husband, a father and a grandfather. But this is also an institution for whom every public outing is meticulously planned to maintain a particular self-image. And it's in that context that more than a few eyebrows are raised when this member of the firm was rolled out on BBC News. Yes, it's a terrible loss. My father said to me on the telephone a few months ago that we're all in the same boat. And we must always remember that. But occasionally, we and the family are asked to stand up and show compassion and leadership. And unfortunately, with my father's death, it is brought at home to me not just our loss, but actually the loss that everybody else felt for so many people who've as it were died and lost loved ones during the pandemic. And so we are all in the same boat. Slightly different circumstances because he didn't die from COVID. Now, first of all, we're not all in the same boat. Not everyone else gets eight days of national mourning and similar casts on BBC One and BBC Two. And no one's allowed to watch any normal TV when they die. It's not only the fact that he didn't die of COVID, which separates him from the 140,000 people who tragically passed away from COVID-19. It's the response that his death gets, a disproportionate response. Second, and more importantly, what the hell is Prince Andrew doing on BBC News? Now, unless you've been living under a rock, you'll know that Andrew is the friend or was the friend of convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Andrew himself is accused of sexual abuse. And this is the Andrew who has been hiding from the news, from the BBC, from the media since 2019. So he's refused to speak to anyone, refused to answer questions about all the legitimate issues that his past behavior raises. And now he comes out two years later on the one occasion when no one can ask him anything about his relationship to a convicted paedophile and can only ask him about his father who's passed away. Now, it's not an accident that he was rolled out onto BBC News. This is an attempt to launder his reputation. And the BBC really, really played along. By the way, it wasn't a camera went to that church, and they were like, oh, this is a bit awkward because Andrew's come to talk to us. And obviously it's a bit inappropriate to put out an interview with someone who is refusing to give an interview to the FBI, even though they want his support to go forward with a very, very serious investigation into industrial child abuse. No, they didn't say, oh, we'll just have to film it and then we'll put it away afterwards. No, this led BBC News. On BBC News at 10 last night, a Sunday night, you had as their main clip, Prince Andrew saying something nice about his father, no mention of the fact that this guy, very close friends of a convicted paedophile, this guy is avoiding an interview with the FBI, which basically means that he is standing in the way of an investigation into industrial child abuse. Now, Ash, I can see why Prince Andrew would love this opportunity to go on the TV and talk about something other than his relationship to Jeffrey Epstein or whether or not he can sweat or what day he did or did not eat at Pizza Express. But why the hell did the BBC play along with this? A lot has changed about the relationship between the media and the royal family. It was really after the age of Diana that that instinctive knee jerk deference did come to an end. However, there is still a very cozy relationship between the royals and the media, because the media wants access and the royals want favorable coverage. Those are two things which are occasionally in tension, but often work quite well in concert with one another. So if the BBC know that they can get FaceTime and a direct interview with the senior royal, it doesn't matter that it's completely inappropriate for the BBC to land an interview with him before the FBI are able to, and that it's completely insulting to some of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, that this man who's been accused of very serious crimes, including the sexual exploitation of a trafficked minor, is able to have a very sympathetic hearing from one of the world's most prestigious broadcaster. It doesn't matter at that moment because what the BBC wants is access and access to those quite intimate moments where the royal family are seen and engaged with on a human level rather than on a distant ceremonial level. The BBC are quite happy to ignore, I think, the ethical considerations. And this is the thing about the royal family, and it's something which I think is particular to the UK's royal family. They've changed and adapted an awful lot over the 20th century, and one of the huge ways in which they've adapted is the way in which they've engaged with the media, television, celebrity culture, and also try to take on this identity of what we are, essentially, our public servants. They've rebadged themselves rather than an institution of power, of governance, of statecraft as one of symbolising the nation. It's Britain's first family, if you like, and also that they've dedicated themselves to public service. They're essentially an extension of the charity sector, and it means that many of those images, those tropes, those narratives can come in very handy and can be very potent when coupled with the disproportionate amount of power that they're able to wield because of their formal constitutional role. And so here's how we see it with Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew is a man who, were he a private citizen, would, of course, be affected the respect in his grief that we would allow for any other private citizen, but also were he a private citizen. It was likely that he would have to face the music, he would have to cooperate with the FBI's investigation, and who knows, he might face some quite uncomfortable investigations and accusations and perhaps even charges himself. That's what would happen if he was a private citizen. But because he's not, because he is a member of the royal family, he's able to take the best of what a private citizen is afforded, which is a sense of respect and regard for their grief and unwillingness to intrude on a moment which is very painful for somebody, and so that you don't really want to hold them to account. He's able to combine that with the lack of accountability, which plays out in a very distinct way because he is a member of the royal family. And that for me is just, it's proof of why we need, I think, a renewed republican movement in this country. I don't think we can claim to have a healthy media culture while we still have a royal family. And I don't think we can claim to be a mature democracy where we believe in people achieving their role in public life through talent, through merit, and because of what they've, you know, what they do and that their ability to meet the needs of the public rather than an accident of birth. And I also think we can't claim to be a society which takes issues of justice and equality before the law seriously while we still have people who, because of this enduring belief and bloodline superiority, are completely above the law and completely above accountability. You're watching Tisgesawa on Navarra Media. If you are enjoying the show, do make sure you hit that subscribe button. We go live every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 7pm and we put out videos every day. There's one more clip of that interview with Prince Andrew I want to show you because for me, you know, we didn't, no one asked him about the Epstein case in that interview, but I think on one reading, maybe he did reveal something. In fact, maybe he was trying to. Let's take a look. If you had a problem, he would think about it. And that's the, that's the great thing that I always think about is that he was always somebody you could go to and he would always listen. He was always someone you could go to and he would always listen. Ash, do you think he is trying to tell us that Prince Philip knew? No, I don't think he is. I don't think Prince Andrew is that smart. You know, he's somebody who wandered into that interview with Emily Maitlis completely unaware of the fact that he was going to make a complete donkey of himself. He's got no self-awareness, no awareness of the limitations of his own talents. He's also got no intellectual capacity either. So I think he was just saying stuff that sounded good. And again, it's imploring us as the public to empathize with the humanity of the royals while at the same time having deference for their feudal and constitutional symbolism. What's notable actually, as you say, he just seems like an idiot, right? If he was not the second or third born, I can't remember which one it is, if he was next in line to the throne, we would all constitutionally have to say he was actually God's gift to mankind. You know, you'd end up having these long ass debates in parliament where everyone's, you know, self-flagellating to say quite how brilliant this man is, luckily because he's second or third or whatever he is in line to the throne. Actually, I mean, he's probably eighth now. They don't have to degrade themselves to that same, same degree. But that's the whole problem with hereditary monarchy. You don't get to choose who has the role. It is. And that's the thing. That's the thing is that you could see it in that parliamentary debate is that people have to invent a narrative of extraordinary talent and genius around these people because otherwise you'd have to confront the fact that their position in society is completely unearned. By virtue of being born into the royal family, you are catapulted to the very top of British institutions, whether they are arts institutions or philanthropic institutions. And we hear a lot about Prince Philip's public service. Now, I've got no doubt that he was a man of talents. He distinguished himself in the Royal Navy, for instance, during World War II. But was he really an expert conservationist, an expert in working with children, an expert in animal welfare, an expert in mechanics, an expert in the military? Was he really this man who, you know, left school and didn't pursue further education? Really an expert in all these things? Was he really the most qualified man to take on all these roles? Or was his symbolic power enough to get him to that place? And that's what made him useful to these institutions. Because this is the thing which I do not buy one bit about this myth of public service, which surrounds the royal family. Their value almost entirely lies in their ability to communicate an emotional affect and a sense of national symbolism to the public. They're not mastermind strategists. They're not talented organizational builders. They know nothing about, you know, what's an internal culture that you need to develop at this particular charity, or what's the most effective way we can reach, you know, XYZ demographic of people. They're essentially incredibly famous. They come loaded with ritualistic and ceremonial meaning. They're not exceptionally talented. They're not particularly interested in arts or culture. They're not extraordinary people in any way other than the circumstances of their birth.