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 😂

I had just been more-or-less accused of being an apologist for either the RF or PA, so I just threw out that sentence along with three others. Was I being goady? Yes, a bit, but I am annoyed to be accused of something when I have never said, I think, what I really think about it all. I am not a lawyer. I have done jury service where I had to listen carefully and decide on the evidence I'd heard whether three people were each guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, of the crimes with which they were charged. I found it interesting, and mercifully it was a theft case, so nothing nasty to listen to.
I'm going for my tea, now. I could write much more but maybe it should be on a different thread

@upinaballoon I'm absolutely not saying you are an apologist for PA or the RF and I hope you did not take my post as such. It's fair to ask is he telling the truth. On balance I personally don't think he is from reports, and the not sweating thing , but as I say , without VG , sadly . and GM not seeming to want to talk about PA , or , there must have been others at the party The Photo was taken at , hard to say . Re my previous post - who the hell is Nathan ? Obviously some autocorrect but no idea what ? Sorry 😂

It was me suggested that @upinaballoonwas an apologist for the RF.

Ah - thank you for that. I was a bit worried I had said that when not what I meant. But genuine thanks, that explains it.
Still trying to work out who this Nathan fellow is and what it autocorrected from , but hey ho , not important. Having read again I think it may have been bad typing of rather . I do need to use preview more.

As you were everyone.

" I am minded to believe the people who looked at the back of the "snap" just at the moment rather than PA who is one of those in the category of , if he told me it was raining I'd look out of the window." That's how I read it, anyway.

who the hell is Nathan ?

The Walgreen employee who processed the snap? 😉

@BasiliskStare and @CurlewKate , after the Maitlis interview there was much discussion about the photo and the goings on at that Jeffrey(?) Epstein's place. (It's taken 20 mins to think of his name and I still might have it wrong.) I had heard a discussion on Radio 4 news-type programme in which Alastair Campbell had said that he visited there and although he had found it possibly a bit creepy he hadn't seen anything unseemly. I believe him. Lots of people went there, I believe. Epstein wasn't only a purveyor of available girls. People will have gone there for other reasons. Don't ask me what a socialite is, but he might have been one. In a post I wrote what Alastair Campbell had said and I was jumped on from a great height by someone who was a regular poster then, more-or-less wiping me off the face of the earth, scorning what A. Campbell had said, implying that anyone who went there must have known and must have been taking part. She treated me as if I thought Andrew is a 100% perfect snowy white innocent and I hadn't said any such thing, and that annoyed me.
Some posters write really interesting nuanced posts and some are either incapable of seeing nuance or deliberately won't see and some seem to come on just to be abusive to others.

@upinaballoon I was listening to Alastair Campbell yesterday giving his 'explanation' about what happened. I was thinking about it last night. He said Guislaine who had invited him round to meet her boyfriend had then left him alone with Epstein for about an hour.
I wonder why. Was Epstein in that time sizing him up to see if he would be useful. Anyway he must have thought not!
I was left thinking GM maybe also procured rich and powerful men for Epstein to buddy up with or whatever he did as well as girls.

Very wise of AC to get this out now. I think a lot of people met Epstein and I would certainly want to put it on record that I was an innocent party if I’d done so.

Well my copy has just arrived.

Brace yourself!

It sickened me to be honest

🙁

Me too. It’s taking me much longer to finish than I’d anticipated - I’m really struggling in parts. I have to keep putting it down and going off to do something else as the sheer….weight and relentlessness of the revelations are repellant.

I used to work in the City in the 80s so I’ve seen my fair share of gratuitous spending and brash excess, but the scale of the Yorks…it beggars belief. I think I did initially feel some sympathy for both of them for some of the things they went through in their early years (including the stuff I’ve read on here but haven’t yet got to in the book) but that has been overshadowed and completely outweighed by the utter lack of moral compass of their adult lives, the greed, the avarice…. The way they’ve ruthlessly and relentlessly exploited every opportunity in the pursuit of vast personal gain (& mostly at the taxpayers’ expense) is shocking. I have absolutely no doubt that what Andrew Lownie has been able to verify is only scratching the surface.

If Charles doesn’t address this in what’s left of his reign then I can see it having serious repercussions at some point. There do seem to be some serious questions that need answering, and the lack of accountability is quite concerning. As someone on the royalist side of the fence as a rule, I’d like to think that William is made of stronger stuff and will sort this mess out, but quite honestly, at this point I’m starting to wonder how ingrained it is within the institution.

I know someone who has done work for the Yorks. Primarily around Sarah and her daughters. Apparently a lot of their conversation is about how to generate money. They already have a vast amount of luxury and wealth, but instead of appreciating how fortunate they are they are very focused on how to get more.

My very elderly mother is just a few years younger than the late Queen, and it's nonsense to suggest that women of that generation were as sheltered as you're suggesting they were, or as incapable of accurate moral judgement based on a very clear eyed assessment of facts.

And if the Queen was for some reason unable to appreciate the issues raised by Andrew's conduct, she had plenty of advisors, including professional legal advisors, not to mention her other children, to set her straight.

Great post! Sums up my thoughts exactly.

The lack of accountability is seriously concerning. From a legal perspective as well as the security aspects.

I don’t think that the Palace can bury their heads in the sand and remain silent on this one as they usually do, and if that is their reaction, then the only conclusion to be drawn must be that they are all doing it.

Prince Andrew allegedly doing personal deals while acting as a trade envoy for the uk and the late Queen E2 being allegedly fully aware and it being allegedly hushed up. This is law-breaking. It’s serious stuff!

Do the RF believe themselves to be above the law? Do they think the British public are stupid?

If they do, as seems the case here, who is holding them accountable?

Thank heavens for determined historians like Lownie. As you say abbey44, he has only been able to report the information not hidden away in classified files and NDA agreements.
What else is hidden I wonder?

I think the British public have been fed a very false narrative of the main players in our monarchy being trustworthy and beyond reproach. We have to remember that there wouldn’t be the need for silence and a coterie of courtiers “managing” stories, if the RF simply chose to act with integrity in the first place!

.

Yes but the Queen was always protected from a very young age in a very strange environment. She was also in a different social class to most people. My mother is 88 and she wouldn’t have understood the world of predatory paedophiles, Thai prostitution and all the sleaze that Andrew was clearly involved in. I don’t think most people generally even these days have a clue either, or we wouldn’t be so shocked.

Do the RF believe themselves to be above the law? Do they think the British public are stupid?

Yes and yes.

As for making out QE2 was a doddery old woman who didn't understand the ways of the world...just daft. She was surrounded by advisors, secretaries, intelligence people, security, PR people and she was warned but chose to ignore.

How strange that over the years she has been held up as a beacon of strength, a woman who knows her own mind and doesn't suffer fools gladly, a woman who rules with an iron rod. Now suddenly she's a sweet old dear who doesn't know anything that's going on. It's laughable!

@abbey44
You have echoed my thoughts exactly. I had to pace myself with the book because it was just getting me very angry.
The number of companies Sarah was trying to strike deals with, and grifting off of was gobsmacking. She was just flying around the world first class trailing suitcases, accompanied by loads of staff, and just looking out for the next quick buck. She was totally out of control and nobody in the palace got a handle on it.

As for Andrew, it was far far worse than I imagined. And even after being dumped as a Trade Envoy they let him do that pitch at palace grifting nonsense. Making sure his dodgy friends won, whilst creaming off a percentage from everyone else. You really couldn't make it up

Do the RF believe themselves to be above the law? Do they think the British public are stupid?

Well the monarch at least quite literally is above the law, @Ploachedplorridge, and as so often the tone tends to come from the top

As for whether they consider the public stupid, I'd say it's more likely they're pleased to be in a position where the public can't do a damned thing about them - and that if they try a large % can be easily distracted

I totally agree, particularly about the late QE2. I don’t doubt she was dutiful and made a lot personal sacrifices to carry out her role, and would have been happier training race horses for a living, but no one ever mentioned that she was diminished in any way as she aged, on the contrary, she met the new PM two days before her death.

My guess is that she wasn’t able to call out Andrew’s behaviour because others in the RF were or are doing similar things financially; even if PA’s behaviour was or is on the extreme side.

I don’t think anyone is saying the Queen was doddery or uninformed.

She was clever enough to know what she didn’t need to know and had palace officials to keep her insulated from anything controversial or unpleasant.

I suspect that no one person knew the full extent of Andrew’s activities, it took someone like Lownie to join the dots.

I suspect that no one person knew the full extent of Andrew’s activities, it took someone like Lownie to join the dots.

i think this is almost certainly true. So many of Andrew’s dealings, particularly as time went on, were shrouded in many layers of opacity. Offshore banks in countries known for ultimate discretion, private visits off the record and privately funded by “businessmen” in the Middle East, Central Asia and China…. Distinctly dubious and shady characters by the sound of it. His paid position as Trade Envoy gave him a foot in the door and almost unlimited rein to explore more and more murky depths. I don’t for a moment imagine that any of this would have been openly discussed with his nearest and dearest. Except possibly SF on a need-to-know basis.

I still think he’s not the sharpest tool in the box, but he certainly seems to have learned the ins and outs of nest-feathering like a boss. I’d love to see some proper investigative journalism into his business dealings and a full expose of the extent, but I doubt that’s ever going to happen.

Maybe Norman Baker’s new book (out in October I think) will delve into the financial side a bit more? As its focus is on the Royals and money.

I agree @JemimaTab . I watched an interview with him talking about PA and his new book I think with Andrew Gold. He talked highly of Andrew Lownie ( Got 3 Andrews in 1 sentence!)!
Storming Norman I thought afterwards he really is gunning for him.