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 😂

Lownie said today that he doesn’t know if the daughters pay rent and would very much like to know.

The security risks were linked to his dealings with people in North Korea and Putin having compromising info on him, those are the two I can remember but he listed a few.

I think the situation with china and Chinese spies is a very serious matter,

There was a big scandal a few years ago about the peppercorn rents being charged to tangential royals like Prince and Princess Michael of Kent for royal apartments. They were all made to pay market rent after that. St James Palace in particular rents to people who aren't royal, Catherine Zeta Jones had one iirc, and charges a market rent. Now that may be a bit lower than some other places because of security inconvenience etc but royals can't get away with peppercorn rents anymore.

Everywhere I look it says this...

It is not publicly confirmed whether Princess Beatrice pays market rent, but she is believed to pay a subsidized rate below market value for her apartment, as she is not a full-time working royal:

So I am sceptical

Thanks for the info from Andrew Lownie's talk, Pinkbox. Very interesting.

I've wondered why Bea and Euge get the use of royal property too given the emphasis placed on their 'careers' outside the RF.

The royals play fast and loose when it comes to rental agreements so I've no doubt some favourable deal has been cobbled together for them as it has been for so many others.

Plenty more to come out about this brazen pair IMO.

I'm aware this is what was claimed, MrsLF, but would like to know if there's any record of what they're allegedly paying beyond remarks from "sources"

The RF claim a lot, but there's a long and depressing history of things not being quite as presented when anyone manages to fight their way through the smoke and mirrors and actually look into them

And why should "security arrangements" result in lower rents, when having it on site surely doesn't really spoil their enjoyment of the housing itself? It's not as if they'll be peering into the windows of the principals or leaping out of wardrobes, and frankly it sounds more like a benefit to me

And why should "security arrangements" result in lower rents, when having it on site surely doesn't really spoil their enjoyment of the housing itself?

I don't know the details (haven't personally checked) but I understand there is a requirement in the lease of the St James' apartments for guests to be vetted before visiting.

I've no doubt that's correct about vetting visitors, bluegreygreen, though it didn't seem to stop the horrors who Andrew and Charles welcomed to the palace, but it's unlikely to apply to those already well known to them all and why would they care if some new face has to undergo checking?

There are still plenty who regard invitations to the palaces as a honour - though never ask me why - and while they'll probably regard the process as all part of the thrill it's hardly going to inconvenience the family

Sorry, I thought you were referring back to this passage in my previous post

One poster had interesting information about the St James' Palace apartments - apparently when they first became available on the market for rent they were released at below what would be average price for the area - due to the restrictions caused by the security requirements.

The apartments became available for others to rent (I believe Michael Douglas/Catherine Zeta Jones rented one) but at the time of release the rent was lower than the usual asking price for the area because of these restrictions - of which visitor vetting was one.

I am trying to remember if anything came of the QandA. I should have taken notes (the lady in front of me was taking them in shorthand!).

The last question was about Epstein’s death and while I already knew Lownie’s thoughts on that, he said he knew who did it (although it was hard to tell if he meant ‘knew’ as in he had a strong opinion or that someone had categorically told him).

He said when he did a FOI request for something in the USA, they told him the records had been destroyed and when he asked when that had happened, they said ‘when you requested them’! So blatant covering-up going on. I can’t recall specifically what that was about.

I'm not aware of anything that says exactly what they pay, do the Crown Estate release accounts that go into that level of detail?

I would expect the rents to be more in line with the market but not as high. It's a step in the right direction at least but another thing that needs clarity in the area of Royal/ crown estate finances.

Someone asked why AMW could possibly be thought of as a security risk as he "doesn't have upto date information"

He got Jeffrey Epstein into Windsor / buck palace. Do they not think that was enough of a threat ?

Very ironic in the context of all Andrew's comings and goings in all the royal palaces with security.

Obviously by Andrew I don't mean Mr. Lownie! To think at the start of this thread we had to differentiate by calling one of the Andrew's Prince!
Wonder if Mr. Lownie will receive an honour for services to writing !

Seems Lownie has got himself into hot water after publishing on substack revelations about Catherine & William going for marriage counselling in 2019 & referencing the Hanbury afffair. He later deleted the post.

Shauna Ray at the Vintage Read has now cancelled a talk with him & disassociated herself. The suggestion being he’s now posting unreliable gossip as fact (?)

I've just seen Shauna's statement - and have seen the screenshots of Lownie's Substack article which are on Twitter/X.

I think Shauna's statement is very measured - she says she posted a response pointing out the origin of the rumours. The article has since been deleted without explanation. Shauna says she feels she can no longer continue her weekly podcast with Lownie.

Obviously he got carried away on a wave of publicity! 🙄

Agree, it’s disappointing re: Lownie & makes me doubt some of his recent more outlandish claims.

I was always concerned about the tone of his interviews - I read the interview in the Times and watched a couple of the ones available on YouTube, and while I didn't doubt his facts there seemed to be a measure of glee that bothered me.

I thought it might be just me not liking his manner, but for that and one or two other reasons I was cautious.

Let’s not forget that he is in fact part of the very same class and subset that gave him his sources and that he criticises now.

Of course, mud will be trown at Lownie. He has opened up a can of worms and his book with all the quoted sources will not please some.
Predictable

There was always going to be a backlash against him - was only a matter of time.
I’m looking forward to the paperback edition for release next summer. He has said there will be more revelations.

And he is working on his Prince Phillip biography. Which may not please people!

Odd story.

How and why did he get involved with the W&K stuff when he's investigated/ investigating other royals?

Oh, that's not going to please a lot of people!

I agree about the glee. I don’t really like him.