Is this really the moment to centre Prince William's mental health? writes Shelagh Fogarty

I like covering royal weddings. I’m interested in the flummery, and I think, on the whole, we do it rather well in this country. But there is a serious side to the monarchy, and that side is now being tested to the hilt.

That is why I was so taken aback to hear the Prince of Wales on BBC Radio 1’s Life Hacks discussing his own mental health. In normal circumstances, I would welcome it. He spoke about learning to understand your emotions, about checking in with yourself, about recognising that even a serious mental health crisis can pass. There is nothing objectionable in that message.

But these are not normal circumstances.

The royal family remains embroiled in the fallout from Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and the conduct and associations of the Duke of York. Questions persist about what Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor did, who he saw, and what senior members of the royal household knew about it. Those questions have not been answered in any comprehensive way. They hang over the institution.

We have been told through briefings that Prince William has been instrumental in pressing for consequences for his uncle and has urged a tougher line. If that is true, it suggests he understands the gravity of the situation. Which is why his decision to take to national radio to discuss his own emotional wellbeing feels so misjudged.

This is not about denying him humanity. Members of the royal family are not machines. They have inner lives, strains and vulnerabilities like the rest of us. Nor is it to say that mental health advocacy is unimportant. It is vital, and male role models speaking openly can make a difference.

But timing matters. Context matters.

At the heart of the Epstein scandal are women who say they were abused and exploited. Some have died; others continue to struggle with the long-term consequences of trauma and the exhausting pursuit of accountability. What damages the mental health of victims of abuse most profoundly is not only the original crime. It is the sense that powerful institutions close ranks. It is obfuscation, delay, or a refusal to confront uncomfortable truths.

That is why transparency is essential. Documentation relating to Prince Andrew’s time as a UK trade envoy should not sit sealed away for decades. It should be made available appropriately to investigators. The police appear to be looking again at aspects of this affair. They should have access to everything relevant.

Even Jacob Rees-Mogg has argued that princes cannot expect privacy in matters of this kind. I would not go so far as to say they are entitled to none; everyone requires some private space. But when it comes to potential accountability in a case involving serious allegations and international scrutiny, privacy cannot extend to shielding records or avoiding full disclosure.

At present, everything senior royals say risks sounding like noise until the central question is addressed: what did they know about Andrew’s associations and alleged activities, and when did they know it? That information may not implicate them personally. But it goes to the heart of whether the institution sought to protect one of its own rather than prioritise the truth.

In that light, a high-profile appearance focused on the Prince of Wales’s own mental resilience feels, at best, clumsy. At worst, it appears out of touch. It invites the question: whose mental health is being centred at this moment?

If the royal family insists that victims are at the forefront of its thoughts, then that priority must be demonstrated in substance. Not in a single line in a written statement, but in full cooperation with investigators, in transparency over past decisions, and in a clear acknowledgement of the seriousness of what occurred.

The monarchy’s legitimacy rests on public trust. Trust does not demand perfection. It does demand candour. Until there is greater clarity about what was known and how it was handled, conversations about royal wellbeing will struggle to land as intended.

This is not hostility for its own sake. It is a simple expectation: that when an institution faces profound questions about its conduct, it answers them directly before moving on to safer ground.

____________________

Listen to LBC's Shelagh Fogarty from 1-4pm Monday to Friday on the LBC app.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk