Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

The Yorks 2 !

1000 replies

jeffgoldblum · 05/08/2025 20:49

Sorry missed end of thread !
had a slight hiccup.
anyway thread 2 ready for tomorrows new article. 😁

OP posts:
Thread gallery
32
Lancrelady80 · 10/08/2025 01:15

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/prince-andrew-book-author-andrew-lownie-hk7qhszpw

I put this into archive.ph

Now he's saying that the Queen not only put her head in the sand, as he originally thought, but actively colluded in it. He also flagged up his claim about Pronce Philip and Sarah Barrante (?) and said he was surprised that hadn't really been picked up on by anyone.

A lot of accusations against dead people who can't defend themselves.

Prince Andrew’s biographer: ‘The Queen knew what was going on’

Andrew Lownie, author of an explosive new book, says the duke’s lurid behaviour is not as scandalous as his murky finances — or his doting mother’s complicity

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/prince-andrew-book-author-andrew-lownie-hk7qhszpw

Lancrelady80 · 10/08/2025 01:24

Prince, not Pronce!

Lancrelady80 · 10/08/2025 01:40

Lancrelady80 · 10/08/2025 01:15

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/prince-andrew-book-author-andrew-lownie-hk7qhszpw

I put this into archive.ph

Now he's saying that the Queen not only put her head in the sand, as he originally thought, but actively colluded in it. He also flagged up his claim about Pronce Philip and Sarah Barrante (?) and said he was surprised that hadn't really been picked up on by anyone.

A lot of accusations against dead people who can't defend themselves.

Susan Barrantes, not Sarah! It's late, there may or may not have been wine. (There has been.)

Anyhow, apologies for typos and if people have already seen the article.

I really don't like speculation against those who are dead and unable to speak out for themselves. The thing about PP and SB is especially low...it's just dropped in there as if it's common knowledge and accepted by all as fact when the book isn't even about them. It's unnecessary and unkind.

I also note that researching a previous book about Mountbatten cost AL pretty much everything he had. So he has reason to be pushing strongly for sales by putting out salacious stuff. He sounds pretty gleeful about it all as well, to be honest.

Just to make it clear - I am not at all condoning Andrew's behaviour, which is clearly despicable and then even more so, on oh so many different levels.

vera99 · 10/08/2025 07:53

Lancrelady80 · 10/08/2025 01:15

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/prince-andrew-book-author-andrew-lownie-hk7qhszpw

I put this into archive.ph

Now he's saying that the Queen not only put her head in the sand, as he originally thought, but actively colluded in it. He also flagged up his claim about Pronce Philip and Sarah Barrante (?) and said he was surprised that hadn't really been picked up on by anyone.

A lot of accusations against dead people who can't defend themselves.

Thanks for alerting us to it - but here's the archived version.

archive.ph/5JFS4

vera99 · 10/08/2025 08:07

Lancrelady80 · 10/08/2025 01:40

Susan Barrantes, not Sarah! It's late, there may or may not have been wine. (There has been.)

Anyhow, apologies for typos and if people have already seen the article.

I really don't like speculation against those who are dead and unable to speak out for themselves. The thing about PP and SB is especially low...it's just dropped in there as if it's common knowledge and accepted by all as fact when the book isn't even about them. It's unnecessary and unkind.

I also note that researching a previous book about Mountbatten cost AL pretty much everything he had. So he has reason to be pushing strongly for sales by putting out salacious stuff. He sounds pretty gleeful about it all as well, to be honest.

Just to make it clear - I am not at all condoning Andrew's behaviour, which is clearly despicable and then even more so, on oh so many different levels.

That’s not how history works unless we’re living in an authoritarian country like Thailand, which has the world’s most restrictive lèse-majesté laws, even applying to historical monarchs. Besides, in a parliamentary democracy with free speech, informed discussion about the morals and ethics of those who would rule is absolutely fair game. As my late dad used to say (about the police), “If you haven’t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear.” What surprises me is that Lownie says he’s a monarchist and a former Conservative parliamentary candidate. Indeed, if PP was “playing away” as much as Lownie asserts, then it goes a long way toward explaining why Andrew’s morality was so lacking we are all the sum of our parts, much of that inherited from our parents.

"Lownie himself is a strangely English mixture of erudition and prurience, careful archivist and loose gossip-monger. His hope is that this book wakes people up to how rusty our “Ruritanian” institution of monarchy has become. To survive, he argues, it must open up and adapt. “The institution relies on the trust and support of people. We will allow them all sorts of things if we feel that they are value for money and they’re being open and they’re not abusing their position.”
A theme he’ll come back to soon, no doubt? “I suppose I am a bit of an obsessive nutter,” he says with a grin. “But sometimes you need that.”

CoffeeCantata · 10/08/2025 08:27

Lancrelady80 · 10/08/2025 01:24

Prince, not Pronce!

That’s made me titter! 🤣

New words are being coined all the time!

jamnpancakes · 10/08/2025 08:33

vera99 · 10/08/2025 08:07

That’s not how history works unless we’re living in an authoritarian country like Thailand, which has the world’s most restrictive lèse-majesté laws, even applying to historical monarchs. Besides, in a parliamentary democracy with free speech, informed discussion about the morals and ethics of those who would rule is absolutely fair game. As my late dad used to say (about the police), “If you haven’t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear.” What surprises me is that Lownie says he’s a monarchist and a former Conservative parliamentary candidate. Indeed, if PP was “playing away” as much as Lownie asserts, then it goes a long way toward explaining why Andrew’s morality was so lacking we are all the sum of our parts, much of that inherited from our parents.

"Lownie himself is a strangely English mixture of erudition and prurience, careful archivist and loose gossip-monger. His hope is that this book wakes people up to how rusty our “Ruritanian” institution of monarchy has become. To survive, he argues, it must open up and adapt. “The institution relies on the trust and support of people. We will allow them all sorts of things if we feel that they are value for money and they’re being open and they’re not abusing their position.”
A theme he’ll come back to soon, no doubt? “I suppose I am a bit of an obsessive nutter,” he says with a grin. “But sometimes you need that.”

Edited

Oh that last bit doesn't show him in a good light does it ? 😬

ThePoshUns · 10/08/2025 08:34

I think Pronce Andrew works well!

CoffeeCantata · 10/08/2025 08:36

@Lancrelady80

The more I hear about this author the more sleazy he seems. This book (don’t know his others) seems to be an uneasy hybrid of genuine investigative work and salacious gossip. Someone earlier in the thread said he has great integrity but…since the third excerpt I’m less convinced. If, as you say, he’s highly motivated to earn big bucks with this, it does explain a lot.

TLDR: OK, make earth-shattering revelations and tease us with sensational gossip but don’t also pose as a hero on the side of light.

As someone said earlier, if he was really concerned with the seriousness of what Andrew did there’d be more focus on the victims…but unknown women aren’t going to sell books like royals, are they?

jamnpancakes · 10/08/2025 08:36

As for your comment @vera99 about Andrew following the example of his father I think that is a distasteful comment and far from the reality in families and real life. The sons of cheating men often tend to go the other way and uphold better values.

That's a sweeping and illogical comment.

IAmATorturedPoet · 10/08/2025 08:40

I don't think that interview does AL any favours at all.

CurlewKate · 10/08/2025 08:41

I’m torn about the what some describe as “unnecessary and unkind” mentions of the possible indiscretions of people now dead. But I do think that if you’re going to go into the behaviour of an individual, the background they come from is important. If for example, their parents are presented publically as exemplars of duty, faithfulness and probity, it is relevant if their private life was very different.

jumpingthehighjump · 10/08/2025 08:46

My DH has just downloaded AL's Mountbatten exposĂŠ onto my Ereader and I will be reading that before The Yorks.

Interesting that 'the establishment' (i.e. Cabinet office, Foreign Office etc) spent years and years spying on Lownie. Anyone would think they had something to hide? !

CoffeeCantata · 10/08/2025 08:48

jumpingthehighjump · 10/08/2025 08:46

My DH has just downloaded AL's Mountbatten exposĂŠ onto my Ereader and I will be reading that before The Yorks.

Interesting that 'the establishment' (i.e. Cabinet office, Foreign Office etc) spent years and years spying on Lownie. Anyone would think they had something to hide? !

If you’re paranoid you might.

jamnpancakes · 10/08/2025 08:49

TheAutumnCrow · 10/08/2025 00:49

I’ve always been disquieted about what the Queen did (and thus knew) about Andrew, during threads on here about the Great Pay Off.

Turns out that was prescient and it looks like she knew the whole bloody lot of it, about all of them.

I presume that people will just tire of not being able to trust any of them. The monarchy as it is will end on a whimper and a fading braying sound.

Someone made a comment on here recently about the majority of people in the UK not being interested in Meghan and Harry and that it was only in places like here that you saw this amount of discussion of them. Following in that vein I would say that the end of the monarchy is a similar thing- it's not something that most people discuss. It's not something they think about. I have never encountered it to any extent before I read it on here.

I would say that more people about concerned about immigration, their tax bills and increasing prices. They are used to seeing all this kind of " crap" in social media- Katie Price falling out with her daughter, Liam Neeson and Pamela Anderson, bullying at the BBC blah blah. Some people immerse themselves in the Love Island and worse type show. The point is many will pass eyes over some of these revelations and shrug " so what" or that it's not true or that it's not relevant to them.
People probably don't actually care about these things. For many life values and expectations are not as elevated as you seem to think.

I think your predictions are only rejoiced at by a very small group who are immersed in this like yourself.

CoffeeCantata · 10/08/2025 08:54

CurlewKate · 10/08/2025 08:41

I’m torn about the what some describe as “unnecessary and unkind” mentions of the possible indiscretions of people now dead. But I do think that if you’re going to go into the behaviour of an individual, the background they come from is important. If for example, their parents are presented publically as exemplars of duty, faithfulness and probity, it is relevant if their private life was very different.

This!

And the same goes for the gossipy titbits about possible CSA. I really hope they are treated differently in the book than in the bits I read.

That really disgusted me. I want to ask Lownie:

What EXACTLY is being alleged here?

Are we talking about abuse by adults or is it just the “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours’ situation?

If the latter, why not make that clear and leave out the teasing?

If you’re alleging more than that, it’s been trivialised and needs proper scrutiny.

vera99 · 10/08/2025 08:59

CurlewKate · 10/08/2025 08:41

I’m torn about the what some describe as “unnecessary and unkind” mentions of the possible indiscretions of people now dead. But I do think that if you’re going to go into the behaviour of an individual, the background they come from is important. If for example, their parents are presented publically as exemplars of duty, faithfulness and probity, it is relevant if their private life was very different.

I agree - say if a man of religion is having an affair, I would absolutely want to know. I am religious myself, a Buddhist, and I attend a temple regularly for meditation, instruction, and community. If I found out that our Abbot was anything less than exemplary in his morals, I would be both shocked and would leave the organisation.

And in the case of the monarch, who is the head of the established church, they make a big point of showing them as the head family in prayer. If all of this is just theatre and a ruse to make them appear pious and worthy of respect, then it exposes the sham it has become.

I have repeatedly said that we are trapping this family in a gilded cage and exposing them to far more scrutiny than other aristocrats who inhabit the same space. That in itself is cruel in the modern era where secrets are difficult to hide.

We do this because we the people want to believe in something more tangible than fairy tales in the sky. They serve both in loco parentis and in loco deus, pulling levers behind the scenes with great pomp and ceremony. But at the end of the day, they are no more and often, as we learn more about how they operate no less human than the rest of us. In fact, all too often, they fall short of the standards we expect.

Of course, historically much like the Pope their authority was believed to come directly from God Himself, granting them the divine right of kings. This divine right was used to justify absolute power, placing them above earthly laws and accountability, as if they ruled by God’s own sanction.

Quite proud of loco deus - shows my latin O'level wasn't in vain !

Thedom · 10/08/2025 09:02

He doesn't appear to be doing any mainstream TV interviews, I have seen him interviewed on a Royal gossip youtube channel,, interestingly he doesn't come across as gossipy, I watched some of an interview on Kinsey Scofield (against my better judgement, had to turn off as she has got to be the worst 'interviewer' ever), one of the few times he did manage to get a word in, he said he had three interviews in the US cancelled after Harry made representations to the channels, I think he must be blacklisted in the UK also, lets see if he will be on GMTV next week. But interesting that Harry has that kind of influence in the US, if its true it was Harry who blocked them.

i really hope the book delves more into the Trade Envoy disaster and his links with the Chinese spy, will be cover more of Sarah and Andrew selling access. That is the real meaty stuff.

vera99 · 10/08/2025 09:06

Thedom · 10/08/2025 09:02

He doesn't appear to be doing any mainstream TV interviews, I have seen him interviewed on a Royal gossip youtube channel,, interestingly he doesn't come across as gossipy, I watched some of an interview on Kinsey Scofield (against my better judgement, had to turn off as she has got to be the worst 'interviewer' ever), one of the few times he did manage to get a word in, he said he had three interviews in the US cancelled after Harry made representations to the channels, I think he must be blacklisted in the UK also, lets see if he will be on GMTV next week. But interesting that Harry has that kind of influence in the US, if its true it was Harry who blocked them.

i really hope the book delves more into the Trade Envoy disaster and his links with the Chinese spy, will be cover more of Sarah and Andrew selling access. That is the real meaty stuff.

He has been on GMTV !

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/Z1uV21XWmXI?si=YcD2bEctOxDMAxsF

jamnpancakes · 10/08/2025 09:26

vera99 · 10/08/2025 08:59

I agree - say if a man of religion is having an affair, I would absolutely want to know. I am religious myself, a Buddhist, and I attend a temple regularly for meditation, instruction, and community. If I found out that our Abbot was anything less than exemplary in his morals, I would be both shocked and would leave the organisation.

And in the case of the monarch, who is the head of the established church, they make a big point of showing them as the head family in prayer. If all of this is just theatre and a ruse to make them appear pious and worthy of respect, then it exposes the sham it has become.

I have repeatedly said that we are trapping this family in a gilded cage and exposing them to far more scrutiny than other aristocrats who inhabit the same space. That in itself is cruel in the modern era where secrets are difficult to hide.

We do this because we the people want to believe in something more tangible than fairy tales in the sky. They serve both in loco parentis and in loco deus, pulling levers behind the scenes with great pomp and ceremony. But at the end of the day, they are no more and often, as we learn more about how they operate no less human than the rest of us. In fact, all too often, they fall short of the standards we expect.

Of course, historically much like the Pope their authority was believed to come directly from God Himself, granting them the divine right of kings. This divine right was used to justify absolute power, placing them above earthly laws and accountability, as if they ruled by God’s own sanction.

Quite proud of loco deus - shows my latin O'level wasn't in vain !

I suggest that your divine right of kings is an extremely out of date idea. This is not something that appears in the Coronation ceremony today. The monarchist is consecrated to God but as for divine right - no.

vera99 · 10/08/2025 09:39

jamnpancakes · 10/08/2025 09:26

I suggest that your divine right of kings is an extremely out of date idea. This is not something that appears in the Coronation ceremony today. The monarchist is consecrated to God but as for divine right - no.

Thanks I was vaguely aware it was a historic concept, and it seems our so-called "Glorious Revolution" got rid of it when Britain effectively gave in to an invader! Here is the legitimate king if we remove violent usurpation from the equation!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Bayern

The divine right of kings as a formal doctrine effectively ended in the UK during the 17th century, particularly after the English Civil War (1642–1651) and the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Key points:

  • The divine right of kings was challenged when King Charles I was executed in 1649 after the Civil War, showing that monarchs could be held accountable by Parliament and the people.
  • The Glorious Revolution (1688) firmly established constitutional monarchy, with William III and Mary II accepting the English Bill of Rights (1689), which limited royal power and affirmed parliamentary sovereignty.
  • From that point on, the monarch ruled “by the grace of Parliament” rather than by divine right.
So, by the late 1600s, the divine right of kings was effectively replaced by constitutional monarchy and parliamentary supremacy in the UK.

Franz von Bayern - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Bayern

Ellmau · 10/08/2025 09:39

The only British (English) monarch to think he had divine right was Charles I, and you know what happened to him.

jamnpancakes · 10/08/2025 09:45

vera99 · 10/08/2025 09:39

Thanks I was vaguely aware it was a historic concept, and it seems our so-called "Glorious Revolution" got rid of it when Britain effectively gave in to an invader! Here is the legitimate king if we remove violent usurpation from the equation!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Bayern

The divine right of kings as a formal doctrine effectively ended in the UK during the 17th century, particularly after the English Civil War (1642–1651) and the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Key points:

  • The divine right of kings was challenged when King Charles I was executed in 1649 after the Civil War, showing that monarchs could be held accountable by Parliament and the people.
  • The Glorious Revolution (1688) firmly established constitutional monarchy, with William III and Mary II accepting the English Bill of Rights (1689), which limited royal power and affirmed parliamentary sovereignty.
  • From that point on, the monarch ruled “by the grace of Parliament” rather than by divine right.
So, by the late 1600s, the divine right of kings was effectively replaced by constitutional monarchy and parliamentary supremacy in the UK.

Why are you copying and pasting a whole spiel that you said applied to the RF but doesn't as I pointed out ?

Are you trying to highlight the fact that you lied exaggerated in your desire to embellish your alleged point?

vera99 · 10/08/2025 09:46

GOD SAVE THE KING ! All these foreigners coming over and stealing our monarchy !

web.archive.org/web/20080617000215/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584184/Act-repeal-could-make-Franz-Herzog-von-Bayern-new-King-of-England-and-Scotland.html

The Yorks 2 !
vera99 · 10/08/2025 09:48

jamnpancakes · 10/08/2025 09:45

Why are you copying and pasting a whole spiel that you said applied to the RF but doesn't as I pointed out ?

Are you trying to highlight the fact that you lied exaggerated in your desire to embellish your alleged point?

I am agreeing with you and showing my workings as they used to say at school and did it with a thanks !

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.