I have pre-ordered Andrew Lownie's Book (out I think 14th August) A thread for those interested in "Entitled"

[BasiliskStare]

So for those interested in this book about the Yorks. I will read it and interested to hear from others who have or to give an opinion.

No spitting , no gouging 😂

CoffeeCantata I can’t seem to link it atm but if you Google the journalist Tom Sykes, he has written an article about the disturbing Thai 40 women incident involving Prince Andrew. Sykes admits to being a friend of Lownie but he confirms that he found separate sources who confirmed this story and he has reported that this incident has been circulating in the press pack for years.

I find this beyond shocking really.

Great questions @Ploachedplorridge

-will the relevant hidden trade envoy papers finally be released by the Foreign office?
Never ever. When papers are sealed they never unseal
-will the National Crime Agency be allowed full access to investigate potential corruption charges against PA?
No. Won't happen
-will Erskine May be successfully challenged in Parliament and the conventions about not discussing the RF in Parliament be over-turned?
Again, no. I do think people assume Erskine May is law. It isn't. It is only guidance
-how will the Palace respond to this book?
By doing what they always do. Ignoring
-how will the Palace distance themselves from PA and SF?
Will they at all? Even in the thick of it, Andrew and Sarah were leading royals into church and after the car crash interview within days QE2 was showing support of Andrew by riding out together
-in the light of these alleged revelations, does the general public believe that the RF can be trusted to be accountable for their own finances or should there be more public oversight over their financial dealings such as a Register similar to that required of MPs?
Of course there should be
-why and how have many of these alleged stories, which have been previously alluded to or reported in newspapers, been swept under the carpet and ignored for so long?
Therein lies the rub. They are untouchable. No one can question them which is why the media breaking stories is so important but sadly the media don't do their job properly

Yes, I know about Thailand’s reputation.

I’d like to see it in black and white that PA had sex with underage girls because it would (I think) have a bearing on how we view the Epstein affair if it could be established that he’d knowingly had sex with children elsewhere .

So we need the witnesses to come out and give details of when and where and put their names to the allegations. If they’ve done so (haven’t read the book), then good. If it’s all gossip with no named source it’s a bit useless in making practical progress.

Thanks - and that’s my point. If chapter and verse can be given to the alleged Thai incident, it casts clear doubt on PA’s assertion of his ‘innocence’ in terms of the ages of the Epstein girls.

There is, of course, an obvious answer to this question….

I've just seen that (apparently) Harry's lawyers have sent Lownie a letter and the publishers have re-edited the book. The person posting this seems very angry at him claiming he scammed them out of money (he was her literary agent) and asked her to procure young girls for him .
Why is everything so murky?

Posted this just now but on the wrong thread 🙄

Lownie is on record as saying ‘a friend of a friend said’ had been used in the book because sometimes that was all he had to go on.

Not great for a respected historian.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out there wasn’t a punch thrown and there was no physical fight that required the two princes to be separated.

@Profhilodisaster. In yahoo news yesterday it was reported the book has been edited to remove claims about Melania The parts about Harry and Andrew were not edited (despite the legal letters).

"A new book about the Duke of York has been edited to remove claims about Melania Trump’s relationship with Jeffery Epstein.
The book, called Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York, written by Andrew Lownie, has made headlines in recent weeks after making claims about the disgraced duke’s life.
An entire chapter is dedicated to Prince Andrew’s infamous friendship with Epstein, the late convicted sex offender."

It is understood that the changes will appear in all future print editions of the book and that the ebook and audio book have already been updated to reflect these changes

----
From A!

Why the book was edited

Melania Trump's lawsuit threat: A passage in the book cited Hunter Biden's claim that Epstein introduced Melania and Donald Trump. Melania Trump's lawyers sent a legal letter threatening a $1 billion lawsuit for these defamatory statements, prompting the publisher to remove the passages from new editions.

Why the Harry passages were not edited

Author's stance:
Author Andrew Lownie has stood by the allegations of a physical altercation between Prince Andrew and Prince Harry, which were a last-minute addition to the book.

Publisher's compromise:
While not removing the passages, HarperCollins UK agreed to add a statement in the audiobook and new editions that says Prince Harry denies the allegations.

I am listening to Lownie's book on the Mountbattens. He draws only on sources that can be considered reliable - letters, official accounts etc. The tone of the book is steady and not in the least sensationalist, and he presents a balanced view of both characters. Inevitably, when it was published, much was made of their promiscuity and his paedophilia, and little of their work.

This is in contrast to Entitled, where there is virtually no balance at all. Lownie himself has indicated that he was surprised at the extent of what he learned through his research. Is it reasonable to conclude not that he is a poor historian (relying mostly on oral sources at one or two removes) or biographer (lack of balance) but that neither Andrew nor Sarah has many redeeming features?

Do you have a link for him saying this? Is he saying he went on hearsay stories or is he saying he had one source who witnessed something but happened to be a friend of a friend of his (or the story subject?)

@Wordler I read it here but it originated from an interview Lownie gave on GB News.

archive.ph/sWeZt

Claiming Lownie asked for young girls? What?

He's published a lot of books as an agent, it'd be a real shame if he was scamming people, to say the least

Okay well I suppose it depends on whether he tracked down the original ‘friend’ and verified the story or verified it another way.

I’d hope he would be able to back up all his claims - especially as such a controversial topic must have had another set of legal eyes on it before publication.

It will be interesting to see what happens next with some of these claims.

Do you have a name for Lownie's supposed pissed-off agent?

Where have you seen this?

And who is 'he'? Lownie?

It was an author Natalie Lowe , who had Lownie as her agent .

Of course everyone takes everything aired on GB news, especially by William Rees Mogg at face value… or not 😀🙄

Travelling to a source, interviewing them on several occasions, fact-checking, checking consistency, comparing with the stories of other sources, is a completely legitimate way to verify a story.

Lownie has said in many interviews that he is more than prepared to stand by the Harry punching accusations and he is more than ready for attempts for his name and research to be discredited as it was when he published the Mountbatten book, and his book on Edward VIII.

An historian of his standing is not going to risk his reputation by not checking his facts!

Of course everyone takes everything aired on GB news, especially by William Rees Mogg at face value… or not 😀🙄

Hello! those were Lownie’s own words. What particular studio he was in and who was interviewing him isn’t really that relevant but, nice try 😂😂.

An historian of his standing is not going to risk his reputation by not checking his facts!

He very much is if he is going on ‘a friend of a friend said’. There is enough material on PA that can be sourced and verified without having to resort to that sort of thing, it cheapens his work.

The declaration that Donald and Melania Trump were introduced to each other by Jeffrey Epstein has been removed in the updated version.
That appears to be one fact that wasn’t fact checked.

Yes, that’s quite the boo boo for a highly respected historian who likes to pride himself on only dealing with verified facts.

Depends on whether it was removed because of pressure to the publisher who don't want to get in the middle of this potential Biden vs Melania lawsuit. Biden is not backing down so it's potentially going to get very messy.

So Hunter Biden was a Lownie source?!?!?

I have no knowledge at all about where Melania met Trump and I haven’t read that bit of the book.

I don’t think it can be generally assumed that information is always withdrawn from a publication solely on the basis of whether an assertion is true or false.

Sometimes something is removed as a precaution because it involves someone who is famously litigious and has very big pockets.