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 😂

Snap! My mum and her contemporaries would have had no idea about this stuff.

How's old is your Mum? (or was, apologies if I am wording this wrong)

I am old and I know about this sort of thing.

My DM would have been 93 this year. She definitely didn’t know about this stuff.

edited as posted by accident

My mum's 78 and she would have known. She had experience of Savile the early 60s and my stepdad had all sorts of tales from his young experiences and working in hotels. Abuse was rife and in plain sight so I guess it depends on where people lived and worked. Savile was banned from our TV.

People talking about their mums not knowing about this stuff-just wondering if your mums had regular meetings with the Prime Minister, all the papers “digested” for her every day, experts in every subject available to her at a moment’s notice, regular briefing on diplomatic issues…

Well, exactly! I can only glean what I read from the media but I am a full blown cynic so that helps. And I read a lot

I’ve just read this. Gosh, what awful people they both are. I have no words. And it sounds as if they’ve raised their children to be awful as well seeing as they don’t want to be near anyone who doesn’t look like ‘the kind of person who shops at John Lewis’

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

A very fair amount (not all) was already known but AL has done an absolutely sterling job of collating it in one place.

My copy's now ready at the library (hooray) but may have to wait a week due to hideous RL in the way (boo).

Looking forward to it 😛

Andrew has been quoted as saying something along the lines of 'oh, look at all those common people' when Corrie was on and getting a clip round the ear along the lines of 'if it wasn't for them you wouldn't be sitting here now' from his now bemusingly yet increasingly sainted Daddy.

Entitled daughters with the laughably made up party gong bearing hubbies
are chips off the old block.

This is exactly why I have never subscribed to the 'Chuck was taken in' eye batting school of thought on the his vile mate Savile.

Charles has actually had quite a few dodgy friends over the years. His “mentor” Laurens van der Post for a start. He seems like a man who is susceptible to flattery. And there is also the “cash for honours” thing (stories about carrier bags full of cash etc.) bubbling away in the background somewhere.
I don’t think we know the half of it.

Agree @JemimaTab - enter Norman Baker's book as you said up thread!!

I think the late Queen's mantra
Never complain, never explain
Is more to do with what she knew or didn't know.

I did read his previous book on the Royals too (“And what do you do?”), and found it really eye-opening, so I have high hopes for the new one.

I hadn’t known that Bea was dating a criminal and the Queen had to veto it.

There were rumours that the York princesses were very mean to Catherine when William was dating her. I can believe it tbh.

I think the daughters are a chip off the old block. They are not averse to receiving ££££££ into their bank accounts or the odd diamond necklace or two. How would they be any different with parents like they have?
Carted around all over the world while mum and/or dad were setting up dodgy deals

They only get sympathy because people think awww poor things with such a dreadful father, whilst ignoring the fact they are no different. They have been recently spending a lot of time in the middle East through Daddy's introductions and lo and behold he suddenly has the money for Royal Lodge's upkeep

Ironic that Eugenie is co founder and patron of a human trafficking charity and has been for years. I wonder what she thinks of daddy's activities

Yes-although Van de Post and Mountbatten were more in Philip’s circle than Charles’. I suspect there might be more to find out there. And Charles’ involvement with Saville is something that is swept under the carpet to an extraordinary effect. Presumably nobody can possibly say that he was too elderly and innocent to understand?

And this was said about CHILDREN invited to attend a party.

Clearly the apple hasn't fallen far from the York tree.

I can imagine the York sisters being envious of Kate and it manifesting as poor behaviour towards her. There was a lot of talk of Kate’s good genes (ie beauty) being a welcome addition to the family at the time. Quite hurtful to the bio royals tbh. I can’t bear the York sisters but this stuff was stinging!

Veering off-topic but I remember Sarah Vine’s spiteful DM article pre-covid, accompanied by a photograph of Kate, Meghan, Beatrice and Eugenie, where she advised the Yorks to avoid being in photos with goddesses Kate and Meghan. She wrote something along the lines of, “I’m unphotogenic, dumpy and unstylish myself and I often get photographed next to the lovely Sam Cameron, so I sympathise, girls!” So catty.

That's horrible. The physical appearances of them all is irrelevant, it's their actions that matter!

This article echoes all we have said on here. The powers that be within the British Government do not want to investigate because it would 'open up a can of worms'.

This article also talks about no questions allowed in HoC.

I have always said the royal family are untouchable, and they are.

www.newstalk.com/news/prince-andrew-2-2190642?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=web

I can’t imagine her PM explaining what happens in Thailand and how orgies work, or paedophiles operate. I doubt they themselves were up with exactly what Epstein was up to, along with Saville and Mountbatten.

It’s fascinating how all these royal men were taken in charlatans and paedophiles left right and centre and it’s the Queen that people expected to know better.

I don’t think any of them were taken in.

Well, Charles was certainly up with what Peter Ball was doing - or at least had every opportunity to be - or else he wouldn't have written about the "montrous wrongs" done to him or commented about "this man (the victim) being up to his dastardly tricks again" and offering to "see him off"

Quite apart from what inappropriate powers that offer might suggest, you'd think any normal person would avoid plunging in before enquiring into the full story, but of course Charles merely claimed to have been deceived by someone who probably delivered the right bits of flannel about his "spiritual awareness" or whatever

At least this time it didn't prevent him being officially criticised in the IICSA report, - something almost unheard of with the RF - but he's either an utter fool or a paedophile enabler, and given so many others he's attracted to I know which one my money's on

No, I agree, of course they weren’t taken in. It’s naive to suggest otherwise.