The speech to the nation the King should make about his wretched brother (but probably won’t)

In 1984 at the height of the miners’ strike and all the violence and misery it brought, the loquacious Arthur Scargill made yet another firebrand speech while his members suffered without work, without money, without much food but not without sympathy. 

I asked Geoffrey Levy to write the main leader page feature for the paper with the headline in mind: ‘The speech Scargill should have made’, and that was the brief. I need hardly add that the peerless Levy needed no further advice and in no time he delivered gold.

I showed it to Larry Lamb who displayed the old Larry magic, sadly missing most of the time. “We’ll lead the paper with it” and drew up Page One there and then. Eight hours later the print unions threatened to pull the plug; they objected to the fact that we had clearly taken a side and they would do the same, solidarity with the NUM.

My memory is that the Express was published with a blank front page except for a par explaining why and that we made the lead story on the radio and tv news bulletins and the paper sold out. But I may be confusing it with the case of The Sun’s empty front page, blank because it portrayed Scargill as Hitler. Subtle as ever, Kelvin. Whatever the truth, at one point we ran Geoff’s piece in full under the splash headline ‘The Truth that Scargill dare not tell’.

(After discussion among the chums we think there was no paper that night and we all went to the pub and never went back. What do you think? Email us HERE — Ed)

I write about this because I believe it is time King Charles went on air to address the nation about his wretched brother and the implications his behaviour brings to the monarchy. This is not a little local difficulty; it is the sole topic of conversation from the Clapham Omnibus to the salons of Mayfair. The country is united in its disgust for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, both sexual and in his role as taxpayer-funded trade envoy. He has lied and lied and lied and the scandal surrounding him is boiling into a far greater crisis to the monarchy than the Abdication.

In this week’s Sunday Times its royal editor Roya Nikkhah writes that it is time for Charles to take to the airwaves as his mother did in the wake of Diana’s death and during Covid. So while we wait, and it might be a long wait, I don the mantle of Geoff Levy by drafting the speech the King should make, taking into account of course that charges might yet be brought against Mountbatten-Windsor. Here goes:

“For many months I have been aware of the concerns you have about my brother Andrew and the many questions that have arisen for the institution of monarchy. You may feel I live in a bubble with little knowledge of the pulse of the country, your country, my country, the country we all care for so deeply. In fact I live in no such bubble; I have listened to you all and as you know I took steps to take away my brother’s many privileges of rank and title last year. More recently, he had to give up Royal Lodge, the home he inherited from our beloved grandmama.

“I have also said clearly that Buckingham Palace will co-operate fully with any investigation by the police in this country and I will now go further. Should the authorities in the United States seek our help, they may be assured it will be forthcoming.

“When I acceded to the Throne I vowed to myself that I would endeavour to make the Family more accessible. That is why I have asked my Government to bring forward a Bill to enable that end. Under its terms, members of both Houses will no longer be prevented from asking questions about my Family and we will publish full details of our wills as well as a breakdown of income which both duchies, Cornwall and Lancaster, enjoy.

“Henceforward all members of my Family will be compelled to pay taxes, and not just to volunteer an amount as is the current situation. From the moment this Bill becomes law, we will be willing to allow full disclosure to all enquiries under the Freedom of Information Act, just as you may be. Nobody is above the law and it must be seen to be that way.

“My dear wife and I and the rest of the Family are very privileged through birth and marriage but with that privilege comes duty and transparency. Sadly, my brother Andrew’s behaviour has made it very clear that from now on there must be no secrets, no grey areas. We are all entitled to a private life, it is what makes us all human beings under God. But in all other respects we must be seen to be equal.

“One further word about my brother; whatever he may or may not have done (and I hope you will understand that I can say no more because of possible legal proceedings) he will always be my brother, and I will always love him as my flesh and blood. But if there is a price to pay, I will not stand in the way. Behaviour always brings consequences, no matter who we are.

“Thank you for listening to me and may God bless you all”.

Will King Charles be brave enough to make that broadcast? Indeed, will he feel able to? If we are to believe some Palace sources that he knew more about Mountbatten-Windsor’s ways for much longer than he would like us believe, then that might make him complicit.

So will it be filed under The Speech Charles Should Have Made or The Speech Charles Couldn’t Make?

*****

I am a fan of Radio 4's Desert Island Discs; good episodes sometimes reveal more about the guest than they might have intended. The appearance of the soprano Elizabeth Schwarzkopf in 1958 when she chose all her own recordings is a case in point. This week was a treat because the castaways on R4 and R4 Extra are well known to us old Express hands, Lynne Barber and Richard Young, both brilliant and so very different.

When Jean Rook died I took the Demon Barber to the Savoy American Bar for drinks and a bit of (a lot of actually) schmoozing in the hope she could be lured to weave her wicked magic on the Express. Much drink was taken and she, a chain smoker, puffed away merrily. The following morning I sent the biggest bouquet of flowers expenses could buy and a note of my undying admiration. All to no avail, she wasn't interested and I'm not really surprised. Little Lord Stevens would have had kittens (very tiny ones in his case) at her savage brilliance and Nick Lloyd would have issued the instruction that pals like Andrew Lloyd-Webber were strictly off limits.

On Desert Island Discs she revealed why she had left her perch on the Sunday Express Magazine in 1989. "Oh my friends didn't read my stuff, the paper was so unfashionable". She also told how she reacted to being ditched by her boyfriend of 18 months while at Oxford. "Well, I became rather promiscuous". Interviewer Kirsty Young: "How promiscuous?" "Very I suppose". "Well, how  many?" "Um, more than 50 over two terms". Young: "Wow, Oxford terms are very short aren't they?" (For the record each is of exactly eight weeks. You do the maths).

Richard Young made a delightful guest which was not a surprise. I once sat next to him on a flight to Boston, Mass and over the six hours he told me of being the only child of a Jewish Berwick Street market trader (hosiery), learning nothing at school and drifting from serving in a clothes shop to photography. His best friend as a young teenager was Marc Bolan and they stayed close until Bolan's early death. 

In fact, as he said on the programme, he was liked by the stars he photographed because he never demanded, always said please and thank you and never caused a scene. So different from other paps. The famous picture he took of Diana wearing that (very) little  black dress — the Revenge Dress — the evening Charles was on tv admitting his adultery, bought him a house with the proceeds.

 

Their choice of a luxury to take to the fictional island? A tin of caviar for Young and a cyanide pill for Barber. 

*****

AND FINALLY

I do worry about our old friend Peter Hitchens. Last week the Mail devoted a page to his essay arguing that Labour "which secretly hates our country" has been rebranding Great Britain into the 'Ukay' (his word and spelling) and then goes on to say that "the United Kingdom...is a chemical formula if you like.” It's not a bloody chemical formula, it's what we call the amalgam of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland while those six counties (two thirds of the province of Ulster) are still part of er, the UK. Northern Ireland is NOT a part of Great Britain , it's currently a constituent member of the United Kingdom. 

Here's a paragraph from the article: "I seldom if ever heard anyone mention the 'Ukay'. Now spelled 'Yookay', it has become a common jeer among the young at our failing nation". 

Nurse! 

ALAN FRAME

17 February 2026