The Yorks 2 !

[jeffgoldblum]

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

The politicians of the past are like giants compared to the shower we have today.

No I didn't know about Lownie being "Lady" IT'S agent, @jeffgoldblum, and now I'm wondering whether - as an undoubted fantasist - she shares this with him

Birds of a feather and all that ...

I admit my eyebrow did raise rather dramatically when I saw this ! , apparently straight from the horses mouth!

This is an interesting article... and I'm all for this (taken from the article)

Lownie believes it's in the interest of the Windsors to be more open if they want to guarantee long-term backing from the public, and he hopes his book may trigger more calls for greater transparency.
If they're to earn our trust and support, they have to show that they are not hiding things - that they are behaving well
This is after he made hundreds of FOI requests and was thwarted at every turn.

Interestingly he says this...
Speaking ahead of the book's publication, which has already attracted considerable attention because of more lurid claims about the duke, Mr Lownie told Sky News: "Clearly there are details that people have picked up on and run with. And you know, that's inevitable in these sort of books."

So it appears perhaps that advance copies were sent out and the press picked out the worst bits to run with in articles.
Just like they did with Spare.

I shall read it and make my own judgement.

news.sky.com/story/author-of-new-prince-andrew-book-what-most-annoys-him-is-his-lack-of-a-royal-status-13409503

I think there are still as many impressive people in politics than there were in the past. There never were very many, and a lot more have a platform in a way that’s only recently been available to them.

The most impressive ones I've dealt with were Alan Johnson and Alistair Darling. Genuinely socialist, feminist, decent human beings. I also met Yvette Cooper and thought she was sound.

I think anyone who got into say, Labour, politics in the past had to be made of sterner stuff than now. It wasn’t a matter of just thinking it’s what you’d quite fancy doing for a living. You’d have to prove yourself in the outside world. I just want MPs to have done something in the world beyond Westminster.

I loved Alan Johnson. What a guy. I do like Yvette too -she stands out to me.

I always have respect for MPs who stick their necks out, sacrificing their chance to rise up the greasy pole by always toeing the line - such as Frank Field did.

Alan Johnson was the best PM we never had. A really, really tough background, then a postman. Roundly mocked by many Tories of course. I suspect they'd never met a postman before.

I find Lownie's view on QE2 and her involvement or hands off approach interesting.

What surprised Lownie was the “sheer brazenness” of the whole thing. “This is what shocked me, the cover-up from the Palace,” he says. “They knew exactly what was going on. People are not going to like it, but the Queen was colluding in this. I originally thought she just put her head in the sand. But I increasingly have come to the view that she knew exactly what was going on and allowed it to happen.”
Unburdened by maternal adoration, Lownie thinks the King has always seen his brother much more clearly. “As does William"

This would explain Charles's more apparent exasperation with the Andrew situation.
Something we didn't see when Andrew's mother was on the throne.

Lownie claiming that what he is writing is going to bring down the institution has shades of Scobie's claims around the publication of Endgame. But of course he loves the monarchy and is doing all this for is own good. It isn't at all that sex sells books far more effectively than financial scandals and he wants to make lots of money.

I thought he was focussing on the financial scandals. When I read the book I will be able to see better
If the media choose to take the salacious bits from his book and run with it in their articles as opposed to digging deep into the finances of Andrew, there is not much he can do about that
The media are just doing it for clickbait !

There were s many impressive politicians in the past though. Just looking at the 20th century: Churchill, Lloyd George, Ernest Bevin, Aneurin Bevan, Ernest Bevin (not to be confused!), Atlee, Butler, Gaitskell, Wilson, Barbara Castle, Thatcher ( love her or loathe her, she was a great politician), Major, I think, Blair (again, love or loathe her- he had a huge impact on politics) to name but a few of the Big Hitters. In fact I can think of lots more but will stop there.

Now for the 21st century….er…oh dear.

Curlew…I think I’ve said so many mean things about autocorrect that it’s having it’s revenge.

Sorry - more typos than type there….😖

He’s sounding increasingly sleazy.

No comment on the fact that he didn't release those details, it's what the media chose to run with, for clickbait?
Not what he chose to release?

I don't call that sleazy.

Yet so many on here hold Charles and other members of the RF responsible for Andrew. It's odd isn't it ?

He does from the snippets released so far. Andrew's finances and behaviour as trade envoy deserve serious attention, I hope the other things don't distract.

I’ve been explaining what I mean upthread so I don’t want to bore everyone any more. This isn’t meant to sound rude - but if you look at my earlier posts I say why I think some of his emphases are odd and that he treats what could be horrendously serious allegations as juicy gossip. In short, I think he should either deal with them properly or leav3 them out…but they’re very teasing and I think he’s fully aware of that in a cynical way.

There’s a lot of ‘sources say…’ stuff too.

Eh? Personally, I am prepared to hold Andrew’s parents at least partly responsible for how he grew up and Charles responsible for not properly grasping the nettle of dealing with him. I certainly don’t hold his siblings responsible for the man he is-and I do my think anyone else has, have they? Nobody reasonable could hold JC responsible for PC becoming the appalling man he is.

KC’s reign hasn’t exactly gone the way he might have expected up to now. There is no love lost between him and Andrew and this will give him the impetus to boot the b***d out of his mansion and any royal events.

William is said to be sharpening his knives to finish Andrew off if that still needs to be done (according to Lownie).

I think the will is definitely there.

If I’m honest now I know that Andrew lownie is the literary agent of lady Colin Campbell , my opinion has dropped considerably and I’m side eyeing his inside sources!

Exactly.

Until I read the Times interview I was assuming a lot was simply tabloids picking up on the 'quick sell' sections - the juicy scandal bits. I assumed that the main focus of the book would be otherwise.

Reading that interview, his own words, his lack of justification for some things, his admission that some is blatant family gossip, his assumption (without any proof - just his opinion) about what the Queen knew - I am much less convinced about the book as a rigorous examination of the financial and political issues. It just sounds like scandal-mongering.

My opinion of Lownie has certainly been on the slide over the last few days,

From The Times article:

The two Andrews are of similar age and attended rival Scottish public schools at the same time. “I used to play rugby [against him],” says Lownie. “We all gave him a kicking in the scrum because we all hated him.”

I’m not sure if we are supposed to be impressed by that? 🤷‍♀️

Is there a personal grudge element to this book?