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 😂

He talks about the type of thing said about him on social media in the talk he gave (there's a thread on it). Can't remember the details but he thinks a lot of it came from BP. Aiming to shut him up and not pursue the RF in any way. So it's no surprise that there's some attempts at undermining him going on.

They need pursuing as the reality they present about themselves needs to be held up to as much scrutiny as possible.

Lownie and Norman Baker seem to be the only serious contenders.

As for William and Kate. They are the golden couple, they are the very thing the monarchy hinges on in order to continue.

I've no trouble believing they've had marriage counselling, they seemed to go through a "patch" a few years ago.

The Hanbury thing (and the pegging, remember that?), maybe, who knows, but if Lownie has sources then BP will definitely want to shut him up by discrediting him.

Also, if I wanted to keep open possible good stories with W & C, I'd want to distance myself from Lownie.

So, I guess we'll find out sometime.

I don't warm to the man, sometimes he comes across as this being personal, but then he remortgaged his house for the case to release Mountbatten documents, and he's experienced a vendetta against him by BP so I guess he's just decided to go all out.

I'd hold back a little if I were him, even with sources and evidence, because the public's fickle and it might backfire.

Here's a link to the thread about Lownie's talk:

Andrew Lownie's "Entitled" talk at AlumniFestival, University of Cambridge | Mumsnet https://share.google/0joAFtftme20MwygR

I haven’t the faintest idea of Lownie’s sources generally, or their veracity. I do completely side eye his poor fact-checking though.

In the (now deleted) Substack that went through the William affair rumours (extract below) he said that “Kate and her former close friend haven’t been seen publicly since the rumours made headlines”. That’s completely not true.

The rumours started in 2019. On the weekend closest to Kate’s birthday in January 2020 she and William had a house party at Anmer Hall. The party then all attended the Sunday service at the church the Sandringham Estate, where they were photographed. The party included the Middleton family, and other friends including the Marquess and Marchioness of Cholmondeley (see link below for photos).

Then in August 2023, Kate was covertly snapped by a fellow guest in the VIP tent at the Houghton Hall electronic music festival, the Cholmondeley‘s home in Norfolk. She was holding a drink and chatting to the Marquess. It was reported she had had dinner with the Cholmondeleys and they all decided to go to the music festival together afterwards.

We generally have no idea of the Wales’ private lives, but clearly Kate and Rose continue to socialise from the few snippets we have seen.

If Lownie is completely wrong about this, which is so easily checked, what else is he wrong about?

www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/2147708/kate-middleton-birthday-week/

I have no trouble believing that W & C had marriage counselling - many couples do. If they did, I hope it worked and don't think it's my business.

I do have difficulty with someone who insists he is a researcher who bases everything on reliable sources who
-repeats a rumour started by someone (Giles Coren) years ago who has repeatedly said he made it up
-states that the people concerned have not been seen together in public since the rumour spread (easily disproved)
-removes the article with no explanation/apology when people object.
That is not the behaviour of a rigorous (or even competent) researcher.

This is not me 'throwing mud' at Lownie. This is what he did. Presumably he had a reason to do it.

Edit: crossposted with Serenster whose comment was more detailed

I haven’t the faintest idea of Lownie’s sources generally, or their veracity

If you were to read his book you will see that the first few pages list 300 sources who are all happy to be quoted and named. That is quite something. And it's interesting to see the names on there. They come from all walks of life. Naval colleagues, security staff, diplomats, literary agents, politicians, 'friends' who mixed with the couple socially, writers involved with Sarah, school friends...
So if you are doubting the veracity of 300 people who are named, that seems a bit much.

I don't care a fig that W and Kate had marriage counselling. Good for them. More couples not in the public eye, should.

It was suggested he didn’t post re: W&K but someone in extended team. This plays into his detractors hands & if so, he surely needs to comment on this? As you say, the source of WK rumour, GC, discredited & all proven hokum?

Epstein serious considering/hiring an assassin re: SF & A & Phillip wiretapping SF etc also begin to sound far fetched.

I fall somewhere between wanting to know what he has been told about people we fund, and feeling uncomfortable with the way he phrases things (the ‘glee’ others talk about).

I did feel a bit grubby attending the talk to be honest, however the audience were mostly interested in whose money paid for what, how he and his immediate family have used Buck House for their own financial ends and whether he is a risk. All of which I feel is fair enough for us peasants to be interested in.

I remembered another snippet - he believes someone was paid for allowing the Beckhams to hold a party for their daughter in Buckingham Palace.

I know who killed Epstein but I'm not going to tell you.

@Pinkbox I think all of those are very legitimate questions, and where Lownie has answers based in fact all is good.

I have been concerned since the Times interview that he was at least partly motivated by personal dislike, but assumed that he was able to separate that from his research. I'm now not so sure.

It seems now all is forgiven re: Shauna Kay & Lownie & Lownie explains offending substack post not written by him but inexperienced youngster getting carried away. Shauna had said before even if the case, he, Lownie had ultimate responsibility & all contact would cease henceforth.

Not so now…

Oh? Haven't caught up today yet. Did he apologise?

anyone else concerned for him that he says this?

Yes.

Yes, for sure.

Yes! It seems foolhardy at best.

Seems a long way from his rigorous research and letting an intern publish gossip under his name.

He said he’d taken on too much recently & not managed his own substack. He said he would do so from now on & assume all responsibility.

That seems like a very credible explanation to me. He is usually absolutely meticulous and he has been overwhelmed with work recently.

If you were to read his book you will see that the first few pages list 300 sources who are allhappy to be quoted and named. That is quite something. And it's interesting to see the names on there. They come from all walks of life. Naval colleagues, security staff, diplomats, literary agents, politicians, 'friends' who mixed with the couple socially, writers involved with Sarah, school friends...
So if you are doubting the veracity of 300 people who are named, that seems a bit much.

I agree with this. 300 sources named is more than I’ve seen in any of the other books I’ve read concerning the royal family. Making an error about rose is unfortunate and I hope he addresses it but it is hardly a reason to question the whole book given his extensive research and 300 named sources (with more to come)

I remember when Revenge was published, and an American journalist refuted what Bower had said in the book about the piece the journalist had written on Meghan. I first came upon that knowledge on here, it’s since been mentioned a number of times on here, and yet some people still quote Bower like he’s an authority. How many named sources does Bower have in his revenge book, does anyone know?

Indeed.

I've now watched the 'apology/explanation' section of the Vintage Read video (it goes on to further topics which I didn't watch).

In summary, he had contracted out his Substack to someone as he was too busy. That person was supposed to write articles based only on his book 'Entitled' and any additional research that Lownie provided. When he saw this article he was upset, insisted it was taken down immediately and sacked the writer. He said in the video that he was sorry for any distress caused and confirmed (as we already know) that the rumours are untrue.

Things I remain uncomfortable about
-no retraction/apology on Substack, although the original article was emailed out to subscribers
-no suggestion anywhere on Substack that subscribers (who are paying) were not getting Lownie's own work (the only name on the articles is his)
-in my work, if something has my name on it, I am responsible. It seems very easy to dismiss this as just someone inexperienced who did something wrong and has now been sacked.

@bluegreygreen thanks for the summary. I agree with your views. Don't hire an intern who can't tell truth from falsehood or you will spread rumors about innocent people and get sued. He should post an explanation on the substack.

Thanks for this. Shauna Kay @ Vintage Read seems to have come off X in light of this debacle.

Well said.

No doubt Lownie will be rubbished because of this, what seems like, a genuine mistake. One misstep and he talks with glee. Apparently .
No comparison with Bower who on record said he wanted to 'take Meghan down' and made the most personal unpleasant remarks about her appearance.
Of course Royalists will find Lownie's book uncomfortable and will find any reason to be negative about him, but AFAIC he has well researched for this book and he has a good pedigree.

I can highly recommend the Mountbatten book. It's a heavy read but well worth it.

It was a mistake but pretty damaging to his brand which is meant to stand for meticulous research backed up by people's names. What instructions did he give the unnamed writer that they thought their job was to dig up and publish any gossip on the royals?

The mistake hasn't taken away from the meticulous research surely?

300 people all prepared to be named in his book. I've not seen that before in any book on any Royal. And more to come. And more sources coming forward.

His 'brand' (if you can call it that) doesn't appear to be damaged from what I read.