Transcription
On the 30th of October 2025, something unprecedented happened in British history. It is, as I say, full-scale disgrace. A British prince ceased to exist. Not through death, but through disgrace. Prince Andrew, a man you've probably seen before, was completely erased. Stripped of every title, every honor, and his name itself taken away. Now he's just Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, a private citizen. A private citizen that became such due to a 91% disapproval rating, which is the lowest in royal history. And the royal history, there's some of it's pretty low, so that is unbelievable. But of course, Prince Andrew is not the first in the royal family to have fallen, and if patterns hold, he will not be the last. And sometimes it feels good to watch the mighty.
Oh, the British royal family has endured centuries of controversy since the English and Scottish crowns were united in 1603 under King James I. King Edward VIII abdicated the throne in 1936, vacating his titles. And now, the former Prince Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has had every association with his family stripped from him. So there's definitely a history of scandal and a lot to unpack there. But one of the most significant findings of all of this is that the scandals have not led to the monarchy's loss of power. That transformation from being something meaningful and executive to something meaningful occurred centuries earlier through constitutional evolution. But obviously, the modern loss of legitimacy and public support, it's been caused by the scandals.
Okay guys, that, that's what's been happening recently with the crown. So the crown essentially shed all of its executive governmental authority between 1689 and 1911. And the modern scandals that the crown has faced have threatened something even more dangerous to the United Kingdom. That is the idea that the monarchy, which is meant to symbolize the civility, purity, and identity of the United Kingdom, is losing the faith of the people that justify its continued existence.
"Go save the queen." "Hey bud, how about no thanks?" "She died." I think for the first time, 18 to 24-year-olds have expressed more support for an elected head of state at 42% compared to the monarchy now at 41%, which is a shift from the 81% for the monarchy among the 65 and up demographic. So old people love the monarchy for some reason. I don't understand it. I don't get it at all. I'm American, so I don't understand a lot of stuff in the world. Please press the like button and feel bad for me.
The National Center for Social Research Center, spelled incorrectly, found that over 25% of people in Britain believe that the monarchy was not important, and over 15% believe that it should be abolished entirely, which is I agree with that. That's awesome. Younger people are increasingly less likely to support the monarchy, highlighting that the crown faces an unprecedented generational cliff. How about a generational falloff, smoking that royalty pack? Am I right, fellow Gen Z's? That was not a Nazi salute, by the way. That was me just kind of getting down a little bit. Okay, just so you're aware.
For the first time in British history, children are being raised by parents who are at the very least divided, if not actively hostile towards the monarchy. And I tell you what, this dumbass has made it a whole hell of a lot worse. He's the Arnuki beast of the royal family right there. There's an Aruki Beast. That's a real Arnuki Beast, by the way. Got it from the uh uh Scooby-Doo spooky island set. I didn't. I lied. I'm full of [ __ ].
Prince Andrew's long and storied association with convicted sex offender and suicided evil guy Jeffrey Epstein represents probably the most serious crisis the monarchy has faced in nearly a hundred years. And there has been some massive crisis. And to be clear, it wasn't just Andrew's association that was damaging to the reputation of the monarchy. It was the family's slow reluctance to respond to serious allegations, exposing their failure to understand how [ __ ] normal people think, okay, about evil freak elites. Normal people don't like it very much.
Just in case you weren't aware, Andy met Epstein in 1999 through Ghislaine Maxwell, though accounts vary on whether they'd known each other since the early 90s. There are reports of both. Flight logs show Andy traveled on Epstein's private jet in the year 2000, and photographs place them together at Mar-a-Lago, which we all know who owns that place. Most damagingly, Epstein and Maxwell attended a party at Windsor Castle in June of 2000, celebrating four royal birthdays, hosted by Queen Elizabeth II herself, which is evidence the financier had penetrated the innermost royal circle. And the relationship continued even after Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution. Andrew visited Epstein's Manhattan mansion in December of 2010 and was photographed walking with him in Central Park. It seems like they went on a little date.
Andrew later described this visiting as a convenient place to stay. "I'm just trying to work this out because you said you went to break up the relationship and yet you stayed at that New York mansion several days. I'm wondering how long." "But I was doing a number of other things while I was there." "But [music] you were staying at the house of a convicted sex offender." "It was a convenient place to stay." And claimed he went to break off the friendship in person because of his tendency to be too honorable. "It was definitely the wrong thing to do. Um, but at the time I felt it was the it was the honorable and right thing to do." That is the most ironically satirically royal thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Guys, "it wouldn't be honorable if I wouldn't wouldn't break up the the relationship with my amorphous jelly pedophile friend Jeffrey Epstein." Financier. Hey, how about you don't do that? Okay.
From the perspective of a normal person, I would say if you're going to break off a friendship, why would you stay several nights and attend an Eyes Wide Shut themed dinner party to celebrate the release of Epstein? Like, that seems evil. That seems like an evil thing to do. That seems like something someone would choose if they're evil. His weird rationalization would come back to haunt him. The 2019 interview he did with BBC's Newsnight's Emily Maitlis was terribly received, doing more harm to his and his family's image than good. And Andrew's visit to Epstein and the disastrous subsequent BBC interview became so notorious that it was the focus of a TV miniseries starring Michael Sheen as Andrew and Ruth Wilson as Emily Maitlis.
And to be clear, he wasn't just defending his relationship with Epstein. He was also defending against accusations that he'd participated in the same vile crimes that Jeffrey Epstein was found guilty of. An outspoken victim of Epstein, Virginia Giuffre, alleged in 2014 that Epstein and Maxwell trafficked her to Andrew three times when she was 17 years old. At Maxwell's London home in March 2001, at Epstein's Manhattan residence, and at Epstein's private Caribbean island. A photograph shows Andrew with his arm around Giuffre's waist with Maxwell visible in the background. Giuffre described Andrew as sweating profusely while dancing at London's Tramp nightclub before the alleged sexual encounter took place.
So Andrew decided to speak with Emily on the BBC in an attempt to clear his name, but instead, he destroyed his reputation through a combination of implausible alibis, tone-deaf statements, and a complete lack of empathy for the victims of Epstein, which at this point, it was really bad already. This is not something you're just like, it's very easy if you're not guilty to just look not guilty. And he just somehow couldn't do that. Probably because comment below or whatever. His defense included claiming he couldn't have been sweating profusely as Giuffre alleged because he had a peculiar medical condition from an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War that prevented him from sweating.
"So, there's a slight problem with with the sweating. I have a peculiar medical condition which is that I don't sweat um or I didn't sweat at the time because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War when I was shot at." And of course, he also does not ever recall meeting Giuffre. "I don't remember uh that photograph ever being taken." And the picture of them together. He's not convinced that it's even him in that picture because it, you know, it looks like a much sweatier guy or what? "I don't. It's him for sure." "I mean, that is that is what I would describe as as as [music] me in in that in that picture, but I can't we can't be certain as to whether or not [music] that's my hand on on her uh whatever it is, left side." Another thing is that it was taken upstairs and Andrew doesn't remember going upstairs. "So, I don't remember going upstairs [music] uh in the house cuz that photograph is taken upstairs." I don't know if you want to believe this guy or not. I don't think his own family believed it. That [ __ ] was embarrassing.
Andrew furthered his defense by saying he couldn't have been at Tramp nightclub because he was at Pizza Express in another place with his daughter Beatrice. "I was with the children. I'd taken [music] Beatrice to Pizza Express in Woking for a party." Recalling this event, uh, his alibi with suspicious specificity. He said, "Going to Pizza Express is an unusual thing for him to do." "Going to Pizza Express in Woking is an unusual thing for me to do." Those are real quotes that this guy, this actual guy belonging to a royal family, an elite, the top of the top in the world, one of the most powerful, probably not a relatively powerful guy, is saying these things in defense of being associated with a pedophile and being alleged as a perpetrator by a confirmed victim.
Most damningly, Andrew refused to express any regret of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein because of, and I quote, "the opportunities that I was given to learn either by him or because of him." "And the reason being is that that the the [music] people that I met um and the opportunities that I was given to learn um either by him or because of him were actually very useful." He also described Epstein's behavior as merely unbecoming. He's a sex offender. Maitlis during the interview countered what he said. She said he was a sex offender and Andrew replied, "Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm being polite." "Do I regret the fact that that that he has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming? [music] Yes." "Unbecoming. He was a sex offender." "Yeah. [music] I'm sorry. I'm being polite in the sense that he was a sex offender."
So to Andrew, staying at a convicted sex offender's home in 2010 was the honorable and right thing to do to break off the friendship face to face, describing himself as too honorable during his PR nightmare being questioned about his. It's just so dumb. It makes no sense, and you could never look more guilty than this idiot. The reaction to Andrew's interview was unequivocally and universally negative. The Guardian wrote of a grotesque mismatch between the Duke of York's language and demeanor and the gravity of the allegations. The interview was described as a car crash or nuclear explosion level bad and the worst royal PR crisis since the death of Princess Diana. So, yes, it seems bad.
And to be clear, the royal family is the furthest thing from a stranger to controversy. They've been through plenty of scandals. We'll get to that. All right. The the iceberg is deep. Within four days, Andrew announced he was stepping back from his royal duties for the foreseeable future. In this statement, he says he continues to unequivocally regret his ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein, when in the interview from days before, he said he didn't regret it. So, he's so consistent. That's the thing about Andrew. He's the consistent one of the royal family. I can't I can't stand these people. I can't watch them. I know a lot of people, they they love the drama and all that [ __ ]. I some something in me is like I don't like kings and [ __ ]. I don't like it when people have two. I'm from Virginia. All right. You know the you know the you know six simper Tyrannis is on the flag and a woman with her tit out. There's a woman with her tit out and six simper. It's in my blood. All right. We don't like the monarchy. I don't think many people like the monarchy, and I'm especially one of them. Okay.
Words definitely have meaning, but Andrew's do not. He was abandoned by everybody. Organizations abandoned him. KPMG, among many others, withdrew its sponsorship of the Pitch@Palace scheme. Universities revoked his roles, and he became a pariah in the United Kingdom, although he still retained his titles until recently.
So, moving forward a bit, there are even more consequences for Andrew. In August of 2021, Virginia Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit in New York against him. And by January of 2022, after a judge rejected Andrew's motion to dismiss, Queen Elizabeth stripped Andrew of all his military titles and royal patronages, which means he lost the use of his Royal Highness. And this meant Andrew would be facing the lawsuit as a private citizen, not as a royal. Andrew settled the case with Giuffre in February of 2022 with no admission of liability, but acknowledged that he regrets his association with Jeffrey Epstein and commends the bravery of Miss Giuffre and other survivors. Those are his official quotes, which his words mean nothing, so who knows. The money Andrew used to settle reportedly came largely from then Prince, now King Charles, to be repaid after Andrew sold sold his Swiss chalet. These words I'm saying are things I've never thought I'd ever say.
Skipping forward again, the final blow comes in October 2025 when King Charles III formally strips Andrew of all remaining titles following the posthumous publication of Giuffre's memoir. She committed suicide earlier this year. Andrew is now known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. He is no longer a prince. He was evicted from the Royal Lodge. His annual $1.3 million allowance ended, and he faces seven-figure annual security costs with only a $20,000 Navy pension as declared income. So that guy, I guess a YouGov poll also showed 91% of Britain's hold negative reviews of Prince Andrew. Who are the 9%? Who are those people? How could you ever be like, ah, you know? Either way, that is the lowest approval rating ever recorded for a royal. The next lowest scores are Meghan Markle at 66% negative, followed by her husband, Prince Harry, at 58% [music] negative. Now, why do people hate them so much? I don't know. Things are very bad for the royal family. Honestly, who cares?
We mentioned Giuffre's memoir. Virginia died by suicide in April 2025, but still, her family issued a statement calling the title stripping a victory. Their quote is as follows: "Today, an ordinary American girl from an ordinary American family brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage," which is absolutely incredible and also tragic and sad and complicated in so many different ways. This this guy wasn't just some obscure royal, by the way, not a random cousin or a nephew in the lineage. This is the son of the Queen, brother of the current King, King Charles III. And even though he's been stripped of his titles, he technically is still in the line of succession. And if for some reason the seven people ahead of him died, he'd take the throne unless Parliament removes him, which I assume they would. That would have to be some kind of insane royal uh catastrophe for that to happen.
So, the crisis of erased Prince Andrew is only just the latest in a long history of royal scandals that reveal recurring tensions between duty and desire and just evil and how power kind of creates that. Do you like mobile games? So do I. I like them so much that I made one that I can play beside my videos when I'm yapping too much and getting boring. If you want to uncover the world of Grimtart, go to the App Store and download The Legend of Zulk. Now on Android, by the way. Go to loz.gg. It'll just take you directly to the app store or just search up Legend of Zulk to play our mobile game. And please, for the love of God and all things holy, let us know what you want us to add to it. Let us know. All right, guys. Also, tag me in your high scores on Instagram, and there's a chance we will reach out and give you a percentage off for Sour Boys candy. Oh my gosh, that is insane. That's watermelon with the new Sour Boys level 5 sour up green apple, which is just like the most pure sour powder you can get. It's so good. [ __ ] Go to sour.gg. That's another ad for the video. And thank you to The Legend of Zulk for sponsoring this video. Even though it did didn't sp I'm not being paid for this advertisement. It's just my it's my game. I just think I have to do that. I'm not totally sure. I own it. So, I don't know if I'm allowed to do that. I I'm not sure. I don't know the rules.
It seems the blueprint for royal decline was truly established back in 1936 with King Edward VIII. This Edward had the shortest reign of any monarch since the Act of Union in 1707 when England and Scotland formally united to form the United Kingdom. With a reign of only 327 days, Edward's shockingly short rule ended when Edward chose love over duty. Edward had found love, but in a form that was controversial to the government, the church, and the public. During the time, Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced American woman, was not viewed as a suitable match for a king. But the nature of how the relationship began was also controversial. The relationship between Edward and Wallis arose from an affair, as Wallis was still married to her husband when these things began. A fellow by the name of Ernest Simpson. It was a big deal at the time, but not the massive one that it would become since the relationship had begun years earlier when Edward was only a prince. The family, of course, disapproved of the married mistress, but it wasn't like Edward was the king, so who cares? Then comes the death of King George V, Edward's father. And then Edward is now to be king. "By the King, a proclamation declaring His Majesty's pleasure in touching his royal coronation and the solemnity thereon."
The affair between Edward and Wallis wasn't reported in the United Kingdom, but it was widely covered in American and European newspapers. And even when Wallis was to divorce Ernest to marry Edward, the match was still unthinkable for a king. As head of the church, it was forbidden to marry a divorced woman whose previous husband still lived. That's some biblical [ __ ]. Edward had even proposed a morganatic marriage in early December, often called a left-handed marriage, which is basically you get married to someone of a way lower status than you, and they don't get anything. They don't get any rights, ranks, or property. But even this offer was rejected by the prime minister at the time. So the king was forced to choose between the crown and love, and he chose love. So rather than creating a constitutional crisis, on December the 11th, King Edward VIII broadcast a speech to the nation on the radio announcing his decision to vacate the throne. He shared his desire to be transparent and the weight of his decision. So Edward's brother, George VI, became king, and Edward lived in exile. So the new King George made the old King Edward the Duke of Windsor, though he and his new wife would live primarily in France and travel around Europe, including traveling to Nazi Germany in 1937, where he and his wife had been invited and honored, even meeting with Adolf Hitler. While in Germany, Wallis was treated like royalty, and she had never experienced that in the United Kingdom. And even though the trip had upset American and Jewish organizations, Edward still wrote to Hitler after the fact to thank him. He said to the Führer, "The Duke and I would like to thank you sincerely. Our trip through Germany has made a great impression on us. Many [music] thanks to you for the wonderful times that you have with us as Obersalzberg."
So you might say, "Well, this isn't such a big deal. This is, you know, pre-World War II. We're not really sure what's going on behind enemy lines, the Nazis. You know, maybe he's just smooching it up and maybe Hitler really likes him. He's treating him really nice, and they're all just kind of, you know, doing their weird [ __ ] over there in Germany or whatever." But Edward and his wife's relationship with the Nazi regime would continue, eventually even seemingly implicating Edward as a traitor. Officially, Edward accepted a position as a liaison officer with the French following the outbreak of World War II, given his residence in the country. But still, his friendly history with Hitler and his regime was not forgotten. When France fell to Germany in 1940, Edward and his wife fled to Spain, which was then Portugal. Though it was the Nazis who arranged safe passage for Edward and Wallis from their residence [music] to Spain and then Portugal. While in Portugal, they visited and stayed at the mansion of Ricardo Espírito Santo, a banker who allegedly dealt in stolen goods and acted as a banker to the Nazis. I don't know why I said allegedly. Uh, it's been he's probably not going to sue me. I don't think he's dead. I'm sure they had at least 12 servants attending to them in their suite before Winston Churchill appointed him governor of the Bahamas in an effort to distance him from Europe and the Nazis. He was just like, kind of great friends with them. It seemed the reasoning behind this, and it makes total sense, is that the Nazis had wanted Edward, the former king of the United Kingdom, to join their cause and cut all ties with the royal family, speak out against Churchill, and so on and so forth. And then if the Germans won World War II, they would install him as the king of the United Kingdom if it had ever been subjugated. But some high-level vassal stuff.
The official report is that Edward and Wallis had narrowly escaped a Nazi SS team that was sent to seize them before they set sail from Lisbon to go do that [ __ ] in the Bahamas. And many theorize that Edward would have been quite willing to accomplish the Nazis in British rule, which it makes sense. I mean, he got [ __ ] on massively by Parliament, the people of Britain, and so on and so forth. And historians that support this theory point to several pieces of evidence that point towards a more secretive alliance between the exiled former king and those who had welcomed him as the royalty he had been in Nazi Germany. In 1939, only months before the war broke out, he made a public address that the BBC had refused to broadcast, in which he urged the British to do everything in their power to come to terms with Nazi Germany. So, if you follow that with his supposedly Nazi-arranged safe passage to Spain, then Portugal, where he stayed with the Nazi banker, the pattern starts to really take shape and it starts to make sense. But what is seen as quite damning is the discovery of the Marburg files. The Marburg files were Nazi correspondence captured by American soldiers, which were reviewed at Marburg Castle. And 60 pages of the files contained information and communications between the Duke of Windsor, Edward, and the Nazis. One such page was a top-secret cable from the German ambassador in Lisbon, where Edward and his wife had been staying with the banker who had Nazi connections, to Berlin, which stated, "The Duke of Windsor is convinced that if he had remained on the throne, war would have been avoided, and he characterizes himself as a firm supporter of a peaceful arrangement with Germany." The Duke definitely believes that continued severe bombing would make England ready for peace. So, not only does Edward state that had he been on the throne, the two nations would not be at war, he basically says, "Keep bombing the [ __ ] out of them and then they will surrender." That's crazy. Those are his people, by the way. And in mid-September 1940, German Luftwaffe pilots bombed Buckingham Palace.
Also part of the files were details surrounding Operation Willie, which was the Nazi scheme to kidnap and install Edward as the puppet king in Britain since he'd been a favorable ally, especially when compared to George VI, his dastardly brother who hated the Nazis or whatever. This seems to reveal that Edward was so bitter about his essentially forced removal from the throne to be with the woman that he loved that he was willing to throw his lot in with Nazi Germany if it could potentially see him reinstated as king. But maybe he changed his mind. I have no idea, guys. It's funny because this one starts off as like, oh, it's love. You know, he's putting love in front of uh his duty as a British guy or whatever. The And like that's kind of interesting. It's kind of Disney movie-esque, but then [laughter] then a few years goes by and it's like, oh, he's he's kind of a Nazi though. So, yeah, he, you know, there a lot of dead British people because of him.
For a decade after the war ended, the story was buried thanks to collusion between British and American governments. But these files were published in 1957 and subsequently denied by Edward. He called them complete fabrications, and the Queen's office put out an official statement. The statement was, "The Duke was subjected to heavy pressure from many quarters to stay in Europe where Germans hoped that he would exert influence against the policy of His Majesty's government. His Royal Highness never wavered in his loyalty to the British cause. The German records are necessarily a much tainted source. The only firm evidence which they provide is of what the Germans were trying to do in the matter and of how completely they failed to do it." So all that being said, Edward resigned from his post in 1945 after the war ended and never took up residence in the UK again. In fact, Edward and his wife were never formally invited by the royal family to any official public ceremony all the way until 1967 during the unveiling of a plaque dedicated to Queen Mary, Edward's mother.
So, this scandal, if you could call it that, uh, stemmed from a relationship that the crown deemed inappropriate. Many of these scandals stem from relationships that are deemed inappropriate. So, the pattern repeats when Princess Margaret fell in love with a Royal Air Force war hero who was 16 years her senior. Peter Townsend, a fighter pilot and squadron leader during World War II, saw some of the fiercest airborne fighting during the Battle of Britain, with 14 of the 20 pilots in his squadron, the 85th Squadron, being shot down, resulting in several injuries and several deaths. The two had met when Margaret was only 14 years old when Townsend was to be interviewed by her father, George VI, and the brother of Edward, whom we just discussed. This old man described Margaret as unremarkable, as one would expect, of a 14-year-old girl. You see, it was eight years later when Margaret was 22 years old that the two would fall in love. And being 16 years older than Margaret, Peter was a 38-year-old guy, a 38-year-old man. But back then, the age gap was not the controversial part uh about the two's relationship. You see, before falling for Margaret, Peter already started a family, and he divorced his wife in November of 1952, a woman by the name of Cecil Rosemary Paul. And Cecil and Peter had two sons together. And similar to the situation between Edward and Wallis, Peter's divorce made him an unsuitable match for the royals. The relationship had become public after Margaret was seen flicking a piece of lint or fluff or whatever the from Townsend's uniform during the coronation of her sister, Queen Elizabeth II. And during this time, divorce remained heavily stigmatized in the shadow of Edward VIII's abdication loomed large for the British royalty. Margaret could marry Peter, but it would mean following in the footsteps of her former king Edward and renouncing her titles, thereby removing herself and her future children from the line of succession. But unlike Edward, Margaret chose duty, and after two years, she stated in 1955 that she was ending the relationship with old Pete. She said publicly, "I would like to have it be known that I have decided not to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend. I have been aware that subject to my renouncing my rights of succession, it might have been possible for me to contract a civil marriage, but mindful of the church's teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have decided to put these considerations before any others."
So, yeah, interesting reasons, I guess. But, uh, royal biographer Christopher Warwick later revealed the real reason behind their love falling apart, and that was she just got tired of that son of a [ __ ] and I quote, "But the bottom line really is that, and she said this to me, they'd been apart for two years. He'd been in Belgium." While there was still affection there, love was no longer strong enough for them to have married. So, there's that.
And aside from what's happened recently, I would say the most significant controversies to plague the royal family arose in the 1980s and 1990s, all stemming from the fairy tale relationship between Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer. Their wedding was record-breaking. Not only did it cost an estimated $170 million, but it was viewed by approximately 750 million people worldwide, and they received over 3,000 gifts with 1,400 guests. Sounds like my wedding that I had in April with my beautiful wife, who's my version of Princess Diana. But I'm nothing like Charles. All right, I've got normal fingers. But despite the extravagance, the royal family support, and the public support, the two were ultimately incompatible. The two had a 12-year age gap, and Charles' continuing relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles doomed it. When they'd met, Prince Charles was 28 years old, and Diana was only 16 years old. And Prince Charles thought to himself, "What a very jolly and amusing and attractive 16-year-old she was." He shared that thought in a post-engagement announcement interview. He, that's his words, not me making [ __ ] up. "Well, I remember thinking [music] what a very jolly and amusing and and attractive 16-year-old she was." "What a wonderful 16-year-old." My fingers are fat like sausage, like bangers and mash. All right. If he'd have said that in the year 2025, he'd have been crucified.
The year 1992 would become a terrible year for the United Kingdom's monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Now referred to as Annus Horribilis, or just a horrible year, is a year in which the family saw multiple scandals converge into one. This big castle called Windsor Castle would catch fire after a faulty spotlight set a nearby curtain ablaze, ultimately destroying 115 rooms, including nine State Rooms. 115. Dude, are you kidding me? That's right. 115. They got houses with 115 rooms, castles, whatever. Three of the Queen's children had marriages end that year as well. Princess Anne divorced Captain Mark Phillips in April. Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson separated in March, and Prince Charles and Diana would separate in December. Multiple scandals preceded the separation of Charles and Diana, ultimately leading to their inevitable split. Firstly, the wedding reportedly almost didn't even happen. According to Penny Thornton, an astrologer Diana had visited, Diana had told her that the night before the wedding, Charles had said he really didn't love her and didn't want to go into the wedding on a false premise, leading to Diana nearly not attending the wedding. Obviously, "her friend and personal astrologer, Penny Thornton, reveals the claim, saying it was one of the most shocking things Diana ever told her." Of course, they went through with it, but it was not a happy union. Charles became deeply insecure once he realized that Diana was becoming known as the People's Princess and that she was far more popular than he was. He's kind of the [ __ ]. According to Lady Elizabeth Anson, a cousin of Queen Elizabeth II, Diana sort of metamorphosed into a very, very elegant blonde beauty. They did a visit to Wales, which was the beginning of for Prince Charles realizing they've come out to see my wife. They haven't come out to see me. Oh, poor little guy. [laughter] Imagine living in the shadow of your wife.
But here's where things get epic. Both began having affairs. Charles with his ex Camilla Parker Bowles, and Diana supposedly had a five-year relationship with her riding instructor, Cavalry Officer Captain James Hewitt, who suspiciously bears a striking resemblance to her son, Prince Harry. And I'm going to be honest with you guys, I'm full in on that conspiracy theory. Diana even reportedly confronted Camilla at a party hosted by a mutual friend. Still, everything came to a head when the long-suspected rocky marriage drama went public in 1992, exacerbating the Annus Horribilis. In June of 1992, a book written by author Andrew Morton was published, titled Diana, Her True Story. It revealed that with Diana's secret cooperation, that she struggled with bulimia, attempted suicide several times, and detailed the affair between Charles and Camilla, as well as her deep unhappiness. It sold millions of copies and decisively shifted public opinion in her favor. She was the ordinary girl who had been brought into the royal family just to be discarded for the prince's ex-girlfriend. It was even later adapted into a TV movie. And in August of 1992, just two months after this, Squidgate exposed a phone call between Diana and actor James Gilbey, who called her Squidgy, meaning soft and easily squashed. Diana complained about the family, expressed pregnancy concerns, and confirmed she was having an affair with Gilbey. "It's so wonderful, isn't it? This is the feeling." "You like it?" "I love it." "I love it." "It is absolutely wonderful. Years. I feel about I feel about 21 again." "My 33." "I know." The tapes were given to The Sun, and a phone line was set up where you could call and pay to listen, and over 120,000 callers paid to hear the tape. This is pre-internet. This is like a YouTube drama in 1992. You can get people to pay to do that [ __ ]. That's crazy.
When the tapes leaked, according to Ken Wharfe, the princess's former bodyguard, the Queen was so upset that she personally ordered MI5 to conduct an internal investigation into the bugging of Princess Diana. That MI5 is their version of the CIA, by the way. And concerns of the surveillance of the royal family would only deepen that November of 1992 following Camillagate. Squidgate was a leak of a phone call involving Diana. It would only be right that a phone call involving Charles also gets leaked. Camillagate, also known as Tampon Gate, was a call between Charles and his ex-mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles. The transcript of the 1989 call exposed the affair in shocking detail, as the way they spoke to each other would in no way have happened if they had known the call was being monitored. It's really weird that this is a thing that's just publicly available and I feel kind of bad reading it, but I'm going to anyways. Here are some brief excerpts from the call. "Camilla, you're awfully good feeling your way along." "Charles, oh, stop. I want to feel my way along you. All over you and up and down you and in and out." "Camilla. Oh, Charles." "Charles, particularly in and out." "Camilla. Oh, that's just what I need at the moment." "Charles, I'll fill up your tank." "Camilla. Yes, you do." "Charles, oh god, I'll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier." "Camilla laughing. What are you going to turn into? A pair of knickers?" Charles and Camilla reportedly were made aware of the tape recording, though never believed it would see the light of day. And that changed on November 13th, 1992, when the scandal went live. It definitively confirmed Charles' adultery and devastated his reputation. It raised red flags about the dignity of Charles and the royal family as a whole. And this was the family that was supposed to be the shining example of honor and duty to the people of the United Kingdom. Whatever the symbolism, nonsense.
You see, it's kind of unclear to me, but the monarch for the United Kingdom is the head of the church. Uh, and throughout the Bible, I don't know if you've read the Bible, but uh, Christians are told to honor their wives, and divorce is bad. Divorce is pretty bad, it seems, I've read. And here is the heir to the throne being exposed for doing anything but honoring his wife. The relationship didn't survive the scandal, and in December 1992, Diana and Charles separated and divorced later in 1996. Diana received $17 million, but the loss of her title, her Royal Highness. Kind of a good trade-off if you ask me.
Then tragically, the next year, on August 31st, 1997, Diana died in a Paris tunnel when her driver, Henry Paul, who was three times over the legal alcohol limit, crashed the car while fleeing paparazzi. She was only 36 years old, and while the country mourned the death of the People's Princess, the royal family just remained coldly silent. The royal family had been staying at Balmoral Castle in Scotland when Diana died in the accident. Her sons were staying there as well, and the majority of the family chose to stay at Balmoral rather than return to London, which sparked public backlash. The perceived coldness towards the People's Princess threatened the monarchy's standing as people demanded the Queen show us you care. It was an entire movement. It was only when Queen Elizabeth returned to London and made a televised address praising Diana that public outrage began to subside. "I admired and respected her for her energy and commitment to others and especially for her devotion to her two boys." An estimated 2.5 billion people worldwide tuned in to watch the funeral held for Diana. The tragedy forced the monarchy to modernize and show more emotion publicly because of television and people wanting to tune in. 2.5 billion people, by the way, is almost half of the world's population in 1997, just so you're aware.
And of course, Charles, the current king now in 2025, would go on to marry his ex-mistress that he had during his marriage to Diana. He married Camilla, his ex-mistress, in 2005. So, since then, he's been able to live out his dream of being her tampon. And believe it or not, the wedding between Charles and Camilla was also controversial, considering that Camilla, like [music] many of the other previous controversies, still had a living ex-husband. To be fair, the stigma surrounding divorce had diminished largely by 2005, but still existed, and it resulted in the Queen not attending the civil service where they exchanged their vows.
So, Charles and Camilla's wedding in 2005 wasn't the only controversy that the royal family faced. Prince Harry, son of Diana and Charles, would land them in the crosshairs of people opposed to the monarchy when he attended a costume party dressed in a Nazi uniform. Just days before Holocaust Memorial Day, there was a lot of outrage during this. The outrage was not restricted to just the United Kingdom. In fact, 25 European countries began weighing an outright ban of Nazi imagery and symbols in the wake of the scandal. To be fair, I don't think he was following in the footsteps of his great-granduncle Edward with this choice. It was just a stupid, stupid decision. I mean, it is pretty dumb to be like a royal, you know, and wear that. It's kind of dumb to do that in any ways, but like to be a royal and do it is especially dumb. So, he apologized profusely. And there are actually a few similarities between him, his situation, his whole Nazi thing, and his grand uncle. Him and his grand uncle both married American women. They both eventually renounced their titles, and maybe they're both Nazis. I'm not totally sure.
On January 8th, 2020, Harry and Meghan Markle, which is Harry's American bride, announced via Instagram their intention to step back as senior members of the royal family. They did so without consulting the Queen, Charles, or William. The announcement came as a complete surprise to the family and sparked intense media coverage. The Sandringham Summit followed this on January 13th, where the royal family met to discuss the decision made by Harry and Meghan. The ultimate decision was that Harry and Meghan would not use the titles Royal Highness and would not represent the Queen officially, and would repay $2.4 million in taxpayer money spent on Frogmore Cottage renovations. [laughter] That [ __ ] is so funny to me. Are you It's funny to Frankie, too. The the the the taxpayer money is spent on their [ __ ]. Are you kidding me? Why does that exist?
And their March 2021 Oprah Winfrey interview resulted in even more controversy for the family when it was revealed that a senior royal had questioned what color skin Archie, the son of Harry and Meghan, would have. "And also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born." What it implicated racial discrimination from the family, though Harry's brother, Prince William, responded by saying, "We're very much not a racist family, so I believe him." And and can you just let me know, is the royal family a racist family? "Sir, we're very much not a racist family."
Harry's January 2023 memoir, Spare, became the fastest-selling non-fiction book since UK book record-keeping began, revealing details of a physical altercation with William and criticism of Camilla as dangerous and drug use admissions. So, they seem to be at odds, to be honest. The relationship between Harry and the rest of the family is completely fractured, and their popularity in the UK has plummeted. Uh, they they're like Americans. They're Yankees, basically, at this point.
There is a noticeable trend that we have seen here. Each generation of royals since record-keeping began. Not really. They all repeat the same story. Forbidden love, public scandal, desperate insistence that they still matter. "We're the royals. Please, we'll pay back the taxpayer money." Willingly, I guess. From everything we've talked about, the royal family seems less and less like a virtuous symbol of purity or a powerful family, and more like a big joke. It's supposed to hearken back to the glorious days of the British Empire at its peak. But to me and many others, it's like a privileged snob keeping up with the Kardashians, but somehow even more cringe reality show. But they're not the Kardashians. Their houses are built with taxpayer money.
So, there's a critical question that we have to ask. What the does the royal family actually do? On paper, the monarch performs several constitutional functions, but they are purely procedural. Before a bill becomes a law, it must receive Royal Assent. It's the monarch's way of signing off on the bill, showing that they stand the decisions made by the parliamentary body, which [music] is good. At least there's a parliamentary body. The monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, but the last time that happened was before the American Revolution. [laughter] In fact, most people that were alive when this happened, when Queen Anne refused to grant Royal Assent to the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708, they were probably dead by the time America declared its independence. That's over 300 years since the last time the royal family exercised one of its powers or actually stopped something or tried to. The monarch has no discretion to refuse a bill that Parliament wishes to pass. In 1910, Prime Minister Herbert Asquith described the monarch's ability to veto legislation as "literally as dead as Queen Anne," which is a really funny way to put that it doesn't exist.
The monarch is also responsible for formally appointing prime ministers. And that said, they must appoint whoever can command confidence in the House of Commons. So essentially, this piece of parliament supports one member for PM, the leader of the majority party, then the monarch must appoint them. So it's more formality [ __ ]. So what powers do they have? It seems like both of the things I've mentioned are not actually powers. They're just formalities. Well, the monarch can prorogue or suspend or dissolve Parliament, but it's not like, I don't wish for this to be a democracy anymore, so I'm getting rid of Parliament. I'm the king now for real this time.
A quick crash course in UK government functioning from an American who is currently in the midst of our very own pro-rogue government shutdown. America separates its powers from the different branches. The lobbying branch, the corporate branch, and then the other ones. These branches all operate independently of each other, and they ensure checks and balances. Hypothetically speaking, Britain mixes all of this. The prime minister comes from the parliament and can be removed by where the United States government becomes a tug-of-war between its branches. The British government behaves more like a chain of command. Voters elect the parliament. Parliament forms the government, and the prime minister, the leader of the majority party, leads the parliament. American presidents can't be fired. They can be impeached uh and removed that way or they can be replaced in the next election. Obviously, if they're impeached, they have to commit a crime, abuse their power, or be a felon, maybe, or something along those lines. Or if there's misconduct, the prime minister of Britain could be removed tomorrow with a single successful vote of no confidence from the parliamentary body. Parliament can also be dissolved, but that's not even really comparable to a government shutdown like in the US. This is a regular occurrence that happens in the
UK, usually before a general election, uh, general election. Whenever parliament is dissolved, all 650 members lose their seats, leaving them all vacant, including the prime minister's, which are then filled through the democratic vote. The monarch is the one who dissolves parliament, but can only do so at the request of parliament. And the same applies to the prorogation of parliament, the suspension of parliament. So, it's more of a ceremonial role. It sounds cool. It's hard work for a monarch doing all this ceremonial [ __ ] that doesn't that shouldn't exist, and, and they're rich. They're so rich, and they use taxpayer money. I don't understand it. I don't understand. I really don't. I don't get it. It seems so dumb. It seems so unbelievably stupid to me. And I, I don't like it at all. And I think it's cringe.
The guy with the big fat sausage fingers is the current monarch, but the constitutional function that he serves is entirely symbolic. He just costs taxpayers money. And if this fat-fingered goober were to ever withhold a royal assent from a bill or a law, or refuse to appoint a prime minister who had the confidence of the House of Commons, it would immediately create a constitutional crisis that would probably result in there no longer being any reality in which the monarchy has anything to do, uh, with politics, uh, if not maybe even end the monarchy entirely because it would be really bad.
All right, guys. The most real and practical power the monarch has is a diplomat who hosts leaders of other countries, such as when Charles hosts Trump or Zelensky. But obviously, a prime minister could also do that. It's just, you know, the guy's fingers are fatter or whatever. So the monarch has no real political power, is a total joke, and costs taxpayers money. It's ceremonial duties, rubber-stamping what parliament decides already through an elective democratic process. The royal family cuts ribbons at hospital openings, and they inbreed amongst each other to maintain some kind of strange royal bloodline. They're essentially just celebrities or movie stars or reality TV stars, but they receive the benefits of taxpayer funding because, uh, of whose balls they shot out of. It's pretty wild, dude.
So, to me, an American, it makes no sense. But there are some people who defend the idea of the royals. And the most persistent defense of the monarchy is economic. They bring in more than they cost through tourism. You'll hear large figures thrown around: 500 million, 1.8 billion, even absurd claims of 19 billion somehow contributed annually. And these numbers are repeated so much that they're simply accepted as fact by some. But an anti-monarchy campaign group is showing that the mighty castles are built on a house of cards.
Let's start with the official costs, the publicized costs, like the Sovereign Grant. According to Sussex Royal, the Sovereign Grant is the annual funding mechanism of the monarchy covering the work of the royal family. Essentially, the royal family receives state funding to maintain royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. They pay staff salaries, cover security and ceremonial event costs, and also cover their travel expenses. And in exchange, they receive the revenue from the properties the Crown Estate owns, although the Crown still retains a portion of that revenue as well. The Sovereign Grant given to the royal family for the year of 2024 to 2025 was $86.3 million. And for the year of 2025 to 2026, it's been raised by 53% to $132 million. And it's expected to rise further. You know, the cost of living is going up for everyone, including the royal family. [laughter] $100 million, dude.
For reference, in 2012, when the Sovereign Grant was introduced, the grant amount was only $31 million. So a rise from 31 to 132 million is a 326% increase in the state funds that they receive, while inflation in the UK rose 40 to 50% over that same period. So I don't know. That's the official cost. By the way, if a forensic accountant actually went in and, and, uh, you know, pinched the pennies and counted the beans or whatever, the, the actual cost could be far higher and far more sinister.
The Republic, an anti-monarchy group, has attempted to uncover the actual numbers, and their analysis found that the true annual cost to UK taxpayers could be about $510 million. That number comes from the security costs for two dozen homes, profits from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which should be public revenue, costs to local councils, transportation costs from routine use of helicopters, private jets, Royal Air Force jets, unpaid taxes, and lost opportunity costs since many of the properties could generate far more revenue if they were fully open to the public. Plus, all the ceremonies are state-funded. The coronation of King Charles III alone cost $72 million. 21 million of that was just for police security. Remember, Prince Harry and Meghan spent $2.4 million in taxpayer money on Frogmore Cottage renovations, which they only agreed to pay back after they wanted to be Americans, I guess. Then there's Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding. $34 million, with 33 million of that being the estimated cost for security. It's the same thing with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and their wedding. 43 million of their $45 million wedding was like snipers and police and [ __ ] drones and bombs.
Now for the tourism claims, the frequently cited 500 million pound figure from Visit Britain. The Republic filed a Freedom of Information request and discovered Visit Britain's own research department told their press office they had no evidence the economy would benefit from royal events. That 500 million figure is also highly deceptive. It's the product of adding up the revenues from all ticketed attractions that have ever had a remote connection to the royal family over the [ __ ] centuries. That includes the Tower of London, where the royals haven't lived for centuries, Hampton Court Palace, also vacant for centuries, and other historic sites that would exist with or without a living monarchy that costs tens of millions of dollars to the taxpayers of Britain.
Even if that $500 million figure were legitimate, it would still be insignificant, especially if the estimated cost of maintaining the royal family is even close to being accurate. It seems like [ __ ]. The tourism industry in the UK earned $127 billion in 2019, with 20 billion being from heritage tourism. That means that the royal family's contribution, even if it were that inflated $500 million number, it would still only be .3% of the total tourism industry, or 2% of the heritage tourism, and 0.01% of the total economy. Embarrassing.
And I'm about to shout out the French, which is even more embarrassing for me. But the French comparison is devastating. The Palace of Versailles, located in a republic without a reigning monarch, attracted 8.4 million visitors in 2023. That is three times more than all UK royal palaces combined, which managed just 2.75 million visitors in 2023 to 2024. Buckingham Palace, still occupied and therefore only open about 12 weeks per year, received just 646,000 visitors in 2024. Windsor Castle, the most popular royal residence, doesn't even crack the top 20 on the UK's most visited attractions list. Those stones out there get more people than big old rocks. Hate to break it to you fools, but the tourists aren't coming to see the royals. They're coming to see the historic beauty and the buildings that are there. And all that would still exist if the monarchy were gone.
Graham Smith, the chief executive for Republic, the anti-monarchy group we've been talking about, believes that the rising anti-establishment mindset with younger generations will ultimately spearhead the undoing of the monarchy. And we will continue to see support for figures like this fall over time, which, you know, that support will go to YouTubers and influencers online who are the modern monarchy.
All right, guys. We need your support. Now I need taxpayer money. Just kidding. It is just entertainment, and it has been, uh, for a very long time. As an American, I feel like the monarchy would be just be better off going. All right, guys. I don't really give a [ __ ] about it. Uh, you know, I don't think it does any good. Seems like they're all a bunch of scandalous deviants. Seems like they're all pieces of [ __ ]. To be honest with you, not a single awesome thing have I seen any of them do. They all cheat on each other. Um, so, you know, why? We, we have a goofy ass government here in America, but at least we can, you know, tar and feather them. We can't. [laughter] We can't. We can't yet.
Anyways, thank you guys for watching. If you enjoyed, press the like button down below. Go to the Gump Club to get behind-the-scenes footage. We're going to start posting on my other channels. I got some good, good plans. Been working on stuff behind the scenes. All right, guys. Go to loz.gg to play the Legend of Zulk video game. Go to sour.gg to buy some candy. I [music] have a candy company. We make four new flavors every single month. So, thank you guys for watching. I appreciate it. And I'll see you in the next one.