King Charles heckled in Lichfield over Andrew links

You’ll see two things in the clip from Monday 27 October. First, a warm crowd welcoming the King to Lichfield Cathedral. Second, a lone voice asking sharp questions about Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. Charles doesn’t engage and keeps greeting people as chants of “God Save the King” rise around him, as reported by ITV News Central.

The questions were specific and on tape: “How long have you known about Andrew and Epstein? Have you asked the police to cover up for Andrew? Should MPs be allowed to debate the royals in the House of Commons?” Footage shared by Hello! shows the exchange, with the King moving on without reply.

Here’s the learning bit: can MPs debate the royals? The Speaker’s office has previously said there’s no blanket ban, though critical remarks must be made via a formal, “substantive” motion. Last week, the Speaker reiterated there are routes for MPs to bring such a debate, while No 10 said it won’t set aside government time for one-so any discussion would likely come through Opposition Day or backbench time. What this means: Parliament can debate royal matters, but only if time is found.

Pressure for scrutiny is growing. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has written to the Public Accounts Committee chair asking for a hearing and for Prince Andrew to give evidence about his Royal Lodge lease. The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has said he supports “proper scrutiny” of Crown properties, and the Financial Times reports the committee intends to seek information from the Crown Estate and the Treasury. We may see committee letters before any full Commons debate.

Where Andrew’s titles stand matters for accuracy. On 17 October, he announced-via a statement on the Royal Family website-that he will stop using his titles and honours, including “Duke of York.” He remains a prince; removing a peerage outright would need an Act of Parliament. If you’re fact-checking headlines, the difference between “stopped using” and “stripped of” is important.

Why the topic is back now: Virginia Giuffre’s memoir, published posthumously on 21 October by Alfred A. Knopf, revisits her allegations about Prince Andrew-allegations he denies-and outlines her experiences of being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. Andrew settled a civil case with Giuffre in 2022 without admitting liability; he has repeatedly denied wrongdoing. This is sensitive material; read with care and remember the legal denials.

Housing and money questions are part of the story. Andrew’s 75‑year lease on Royal Lodge in Windsor involved a £1m upfront payment and a commitment to about £7.5m of renovations; ongoing rent has been described as a nominal “peppercorn,” and reporting suggests a clause of roughly £558,000 if he surrendered early. The Guardian says discussions about him leaving have advanced, though Buckingham Palace hasn’t confirmed any move. Committees could ask the Crown Estate and ministers how such leases are overseen.

For you as a media‑literate reader, this is a live lesson in public speech and constitutional roles. People can and do challenge the monarchy in public spaces; equally, the sovereign’s convention is not to answer political or live legal questions. That’s why the moment outside Lichfield felt noisy but short-the accountability conversation is now flowing through Parliament and committees rather than a walkabout.

A quick language check helps you weigh coverage: Andrew says he will “no longer use” his titles and honours; he has not had his dukedom legally removed. Several outlets have used both phrasings interchangeably this week, but only Parliament could strip a peerage. Keep that distinction in your notes when you discuss this in class.

What to watch next: whether Opposition parties use their allotted days to force a Commons debate; whether the Public Accounts Committee formally opens an inquiry and calls witnesses; and whether any confirmed change emerges on Royal Lodge. We’ll keep following official committee notices and Crown Estate responses so you don’t have to.