Thomas Massie rose in Congress this week and made an extraordinary allegation: that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had committed sex crimes in the United States. The Kentucky Republican made the claim under privilege. Andrew has denied the accusations and has never faced criminal charges.

What followed has been strikingly quiet. No response from the Palace. No statement from the late Queen’s second son, whose titles were removed last year, along with his palatial residence at Royal Lodge. He remains eighth in line to the throne and is still under investigation in the UK over allegations of misconduct in public office. Massie may have named Andrew, but the fallout reaches beyond one man.

Another second son of a British monarch is also causing turbulence. Harry’s return to the UK, and the renewed dispute over who should fund his security while he is there, has triggered a backlash that is now beginning to touch the King himself.

For now, neither controversy threatens the monarchy’s survival. Institutions like the Crown are not usually toppled in a single dramatic moment. They weaken more slowly, as confidence drains away and each scandal strips off another layer of public respect.

Anglo-Saxon England once had a mechanism for dealing with unsuitable heirs. The Witan, a council of elders, could set aside the eldest son and select someone judged fit to rule. William the Conqueror swept that system away, turning the Crown into a question of bloodline above all else.

Back then they had a choice once. Nobody has one now.

Andrew was second in line for more than 20 years, until William was born in 1982. Harry was third for nearly 30, until George arrived in 2013. Neither was chosen. Neither assessed.

Imagine either of them on the throne now, knowing what we know. That is not a crisis the monarchy rides out. It perhaps presents its greatest challenge.

If all that wasn’t enough, now Sarah, Duchess of York, is in the papers again, with reports that she is heading to England, ending her self-imposed exile.

The hefty offers for her tell-all book have apparently already been made. I doubt, this time, she takes them. My guess is she keeps her head down. But no doubt she has a story to tell and sell. If her head was turned by the figures, it would not be good for Andrew or the monarchy.

I have covered this family for thirty-five years plus and seen worse weeks. Royal divorces. The Windsor Fire. The tragic death of Diana 29 years ago. But without doubt this is a rocky time for the House of Windsor. Too many factions, divisions. It is in transition from Elizabeth II’s death – but to where?

The Habsburgs, one of Europe’s most enduring royal dynasties, are the comparison I keep coming back to. They ruled much of Europe for centuries and by 1918 they were gone.

World War One gets the blame. But they were already too stiff for the century they were in. Their last emperor was also called Charles. He never formally abdicated. He tried twice to take Hungary back and he died broke in Madeira in 1922. The royal dynasty just faded away, without a noisy revolution, more an apathetic sigh.

Elizabeth II, always putting duty first, kept the mystique of monarchy. Under her, it seemed relevant. Nostalgic perhaps, but still an important part of our societal fabric. Something to look up to.

Her son, the King, is a decent man and people like him. But now he is being accused, after the Harry debacle, of putting family before duty, of indulging his younger son, muddying the waters for William for when his reign comes. He too has come under fire over the unedifying problem of his brother Andrew.

That is perhaps unfair. He can hardly say a word about Andrew, not while there is an active police investigation ongoing.

There is not much he can do about Harry either. He is a father as well as a king. Fairness has never been much use here. What matters is what people believe. It looks like weakness, and they have begun to doubt this King’s judgment.

It is spreading far and wide. Across the Caribbean the realms are stepping back from swearing allegiance. Antigua and Barbuda have already done it. Parliament took the King, his heirs and successors out of the oath, and when Gaston Browne’s new cabinet was sworn in this May, after his fourth election win, they pledged themselves to the state, its constitution and its laws instead. More than 40 years of swearing to the sovereign, ended.

It is not yet a republic. It is still a Commonwealth realm. Nobody has voted on that, and Browne has been promising a referendum since 2022. But he has made this move before the King lands in St John’s for the Commonwealth heads of government meeting. Grenada did the same last August.

Every time, the King says he supports them and wants them in the Commonwealth even if they ditch the Crown. Nearby Barbados became a republic in 2021 and remains in it. It is the crown they are edging away from, not the Commonwealth, and the King is still its head.

But support for the monarchy in the region is fading, through missteps and perception, whether it is true or not, fair or not. I was broadcasting to Channel 7 Australia on a beach in Barbados in November 2021 just after they ditched the Queen as head of state when a man came over and told me he wanted no part of the royal family.

He was quite certain. Nothing I could have said would have moved him. It was after Harry and Meghan’s Oprah interview. 

This is undoubtedly a crown divided. The scriptures put it plainly: a house divided against itself cannot stand (Mark 3:25). It is as true now as when it was written.

Today William is getting the backlash and deserves it least. He has been increasingly and wrongly cast as being the difficult brother. Forgive Harry in public and he rewards everything that was done to his wife and his father. Refuse and he is the hard-hearted one who shut the door. But what about trust? Not so easily gained. Surely, Harry has got to prove worthy.

There is a daft game in that and I confess to playing it in my head. Put them in ancient costume and you are halfway there. Charles the Unready, blindsided by his own son. Æthelred at least had the Vikings for an excuse for not being ready. And Harry, who in Shakespeare cries ‘God for Harry, England and Saint George,’ and now cries just for Harry and for ‘Meghan.’ And then there is ‘William the Cornered.’ Let’s hope he can rise from this mess and still conquer.

The protection row could be settled quietly tomorrow. Retired royalty protection officers, paid for privately by the King’s deep pockets. The obstacle is that in America such men can carry a weapon and in Britain they cannot.

The reports for a fortnight have pointed the other way, towards his armed, state-funded security detail being restored. That is where the politicians are, on both sides of the House. But politicians are not the public.

Which brings me to the polls, where 63 percent in the UK say the Sussexes should pay for their own security. The King once told me polls meant nothing to him. He then looked me straight in the eye and said: ‘You see, I’m in it for the long term.’ That was at a reception held in his honor at Government House in Darwin, Australia, in 2018. Perhaps, respectfully, it may be time to start reading them.

He was well aware of public opinion before. He told his biographer Jonathan Dimbleby in 1994 that something as curious as the monarchy would not last unless it took account of what people thought. ‘After all,’ he said, ‘if people don’t want it, they won’t have it.’

When his time in the top job comes, William can pull it back. He has the standing. He has the time. But as history has shown, perhaps not as much as he may think.

Robert Jobson is a New York Times bestselling author. His latest book is The Windsor Legacy, published by Pegasus in the US and Blink in the UK.

A Texas street preacher stirred controversy Sunday after raising the American flag back to full-staff outside a post office, openly rejecting President Trump’s directive to lower flags in tribute to Dolly Parton.

David Grisham restored “Old Glory” to the top of the flagpole at the Borger Post Office in the Texas Panhandle, days after Trump ordered flags nationwide to fly at half-staff for one week following the country music legend’s death at 80.

In a video shared on Facebook, Grisham argued that the honor was misplaced. “She’s never served in the United States government in any capacity officially,” he said. “I don’t think this is an appropriate way to honor her.”

Grisham insisted that lowering the American flag should be a gesture reserved for military personnel and others who served the nation in an official capacity.

“I don’t think it’s the United States government’s business to honor some country western star,” he said, adding that many U.S. service members never receive the same recognition.

“This flag should have been flown in top mast, not half-mast, for Dolly Parton,” he added.

On Aug. 25, Trump issued a proclamation directing US flags at the White House, federal public buildings — including post offices — military installations and US embassies to fly at half-staff through sunset on Sept. 1, in memory of Parton.

But Grisham wasn’t the only one to reject the order.

ALSO READ: Dad and Hot Tub Where He and Wife Died in Spain Revealed

Ken Adams, the Republican mayor of Olive Branch, Miss., a suburb of Memphis, Tenn., also refused to lower the American flag following Parton’s death.

“I believe lowering the American flag to half-staff should mean something very significant,” Adams wrote Friday on the city’s Facebook page.

“In my opinion, it should be reserved for our military heroes, fallen first responders, presidents and other major national leaders, or events that have had a tremendous impact on our country,” he added.

Adams cited Mississippi’s Home Rule law, which gives cities authority over their internal affairs, and said mayors should “use our own judgment when appropriate” when making decisions for their constituents.

Parton had a history of supporting US troops, performing for service members at a Tennessee Air National Guard base in 2004 and hosting a 2005 Grand Ole Opry broadcast watched by troops in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Grisham has staged controversial — and outlandish — protests before.

In November 2023, the Texas preacher stood outside Sleepy Hollow Elementary School in Amarillo dressed as the Grinch and holding a sign that read, “Santa is Fake. Jesus is Real.”

Grisham said he was challenging what he viewed as a lie being told to children. 

He also claimed he was assaulted outside the school and said police “showed up in force” to disrupt his protest and block him from “exercising my First Amendment rights as much as they could.”

President Donald Trump reignited talk of potential regime change in Iran on Tuesday night, publicly questioning when Iranians would “rise up and fight” as his administration ramps up military and economic pressure on a government U.S. officials describe as increasingly fragile.

“I’m not trying to force Iran to the bargaining table,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Tuesday. “I like our position now much better, with almost total control of the Hormuz Strait, and their economy totally collapsing.”

“They are just playing out the inevitable,” Trump continued. “When are the Iranian people going to rise up and fight?”

Trump expanded on the comments Wednesday after Fox News’ Peter Doocy asked whether he would deploy the CIA to arm Iranians if his goal was for them to “rise up and fight.”

“I’d love to tell you that, but it wouldn’t be appropriate to say,” Trump responded from the Oval Office.

Trump said he understood why Iranians have not risen in larger numbers, arguing that protesters face deadly repression from the government. 

“Most people can’t kill their own people like that. Most people try and reason when they talk. And then there might be an overthrow. In Iran, they kill people. … They shoot them right between the eyes. They have two forms: machine guns and snipers. … They like the snipers better because all they do is have a crowd of 200,000 people, and a person goes down here right between the eyes, and they’ll have three snipers doing it. And, it’s a horrible thing to watch,” he said. 

“So that’s why it’s not happening,” the president added, “And who can blame them? Who can blame them? But the regime is getting weaker by the day… And at some point, they’re not going to be able to shoot so easily because I think the people aren’t going to take it,” Trump said. “But I did pose that question because, you know, it would be time.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described Iran as being in a “death spiral” during remarks Monday, arguing that economic pressure was rapidly narrowing the government’s options.

“They are panicked. They are resorting to kinetic because they are getting squeezed economically,” Bessent told Ed Lawrence on Fox Business.

Bessent said Iran could eventually face one of three outcomes: “Either the IRGC are going to turn on each other, the people are going to turn on them, or they are going to come to the table and want to do a deal that they can stick with.”

“They are in the death throes,” he added, comparing Iran’s deterioration to bankruptcy occurring “slowly, then quickly.”

Miad Maleki, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former Treasury sanctions official, told News Media that Washington does not need to choose between invading Iran to overthrow the government and striking another agreement with Tehran.

READ MORE: NJ Gov. Sherrill Accuses Trump of Despising Military Service

“It’s very clear U.S. government is not in the business of regime change anymore,” Maleki said. “And I think it’s very clear that we’re not going to have boots on the ground to invade Iran. And I don’t think we need that.”

Instead, Maleki argued Washington should “contain this regime, cut off its economic lifelines, empower the Iranian people” and prepare for another wave of demonstrations inside Iran.

“We need to be prepared to support the Iranian people in a way that they can be empowered and take the government back,” he said, stressing the importance of ensuring protesters maintain access to the internet so they can communicate, mobilize and make their voices heard.

Maleki described Iran’s leadership as the weakest it has been since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and argued that further Iranian military escalation could deepen its vulnerability rather than restore lost leverage.

The debate comes as reports of localized economic protests continue to emerge from inside Iran.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran, an exiled Iranian opposition coalition, said Tuesday that workers, retirees, drivers and job-seeking young people demonstrated in several cities on Aug. 31. The group alleged security forces opened fire on job seekers in Gachsaran and Ahvaz and reported separate demonstrations over unpaid wages, inflation, fuel shortages and working conditions. Those specific claims have not been independently verified by News Media.

Iran analyst Benny Sabti also told News Media that deteriorating living conditions could become a catalyst for broader unrest. “People are hungry,” Sabti said, predicting Iranians would “take the streets again.”

“Hunger is humiliating,” he said, arguing that economic desperation could eventually outweigh fear of the government’s security apparatus.

The political stakes are rising alongside a dramatic military escalation. US forces carried out another wave of strikes Tuesday against Iranian air-defense systems, radar installations, maritime assets and mine-laying capabilities, according to US Central Command, while Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks against US assets across the region.

For Trump, however, Tuesday night’s post suggested the question may no longer be only whether economic pressure brings Tehran back to negotiations — but what happens inside Iran if it does not.