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 😂

On what basis? Honestly I am totally aghast at this.

Presumably BC if she'd been declined, they feared she'd get Andrew or The Palace to kick off/ remove royal warrants?

This is exactly why I’ve become an anti monarchist.Has anyone been watching the David Dimbleby programme about the monarchy? It’s excellent.

I am going to catch up on the Dimbleby series next week when I have more time. I find it very interesting that David Dimbleby, , was very prominent in narrating BBC coverage for all the prominent Royal events. Weddings, the Cenotaph, Diana's funeral . And now he is doing this series. So I am curious

Andrew Lownie on The Daily Beast said that all the files about Andrew covering his time as a trade envoy are still being held back, but by law they should be in the Public Archives. (This is very early in the podcast).

I’ve only watched a bit of this podcast so far but I wanted to link it because we are commonly told that lots of stuff is not public by law when it comes to the RF.

According to Lownie the Palace tried to actively suppress all stories of Andrew &Virginia Guiffre - going so far as to tell one news outlet (ABC, I think he said) that if they proceeded with a story they wouldn’t have access to any Royal Family members again.

thats shocking about Selfridges! I wonder what would happen if I tried that… well we all know the answer.

I don’t think the trade envoy stuff will see the light of day as I bet there are government ministers embroiled in it. No way did government of the day not realise what was going on.

They did report that she was actually quite polite to them, if that's any consolation. Unlike Carole Vorderman who'd always kick off about the interest calculations

Yes! They threatened withholding access to W, C and family. And what is shocking is that ABC capitulated! It meant that the abuse wasn’t exposed for a further three years!

That is absolutely beyond belief that the Palace would do that. They must have thought that news would never see the light of day. And presumably that was done with the approval of TLQ and Charles. It's also plausible that William was aware of it too.

Why am I not even remotely surprised?

Which channel is the Dimbleby programme on please?

BBC

I watched the first episode and I thought it was excellent. He dared to ask some probing questions and was a lot less “establishment” than I anticipated . You need to be a big hitter journalist to persuade establishment figures to talk to you in the first place and to be able to challenge the accepted narrative.

He interviewed some quite high-powered former government ministers and covered both the prorogation of Parliament and the spidery PoW letters. Both of which I thought exposed the inadequacies of our unwritten constitution, especially the former.

As ever though the Republicans they choose to interview either come across as pretty wierd or unpleasant 😁 and I felt their case could have been expressed a lot more intelligently. I’m interested to watch the rest. A very timely series.

One nugget of information I found interesting; that MPs of a Republican persuasion have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch and the heir before taking up their duties in Parliament. 🤔 A bit of a difficult one that!

One nugget of information I found interesting; that MPs of a Republican persuasion have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch and the heir before taking up their duties in Parliament. 🤔 A bit of a difficult one that!

At the last swearing in of a new MPs there was a bit of a hoohah when one MP refused. I think they rewrote it slightly and he gave in

Clive Lewis - interestingly on his first attempt at the oath he did include King Charles in the oath but not the line about heirs and successors.

They made him come back and do the whole oath.

Which he did but under protest.

Entirely unsurprised given the 'perpetual edit' clauses relating to E2's funeral and C3's coronation imposed by the palace on the media including the national broadcaster who just rolled over.

I didn't know about that.

Entirely unsurprised given the 'perpetual edit' clauses relating to E2's funeral and C3's coronation imposed by the palace on the media including the national broadcaster who just rolled over.

Not sure about my thoughts on this one. Obviously, live broadcasts are live, and won't be edited, and in the current age most things will be recorded and available on YouTube or somewhere else anyway - but I don't see a huge issue with remembering that this is a family grieving as well as a state occasion.

Interestingly, I read an interview with Dimbleby a few days ago where this was being discussed. The interviewer pointed out that the BBC was effectively doing the same thing in his own programme - the montage of newsreaders announcing the Queen's death totally excludes Huw Edwards.

https://archive.is/byAlG

That’s just commonsense in current media times - you end up with someone fainting or tripping or Louis picking his nose or someone absolutely overcome with raw grief. Having people clip those moments and put them on an eternal loop on TikTok or YouTube would be awful.

It’s not as though asserting some control over the filming of those big events would be an issue of hiding something of national importance.

New popbitch reports Fergie also ran up tabs with Harvey Nicks.

Well of COURSE she did

"...But Fergie wasn’t a loyal Selfridges snob. Actually she wasn’t very fussy about where she ran up her bills. Back in the late 80s, Harvey Nichols issued all the prominent royal females with a store card.

They didn’t seem to use them, except for one, who maxed out her card and never cleared the balance. She was never chased up for it either - the card was just kept open for her to continue her spending sprees..."
( Yes. Fergie)

I’m wondering - why do these stores allow this? How do they benefit?

Patronage presumably

How to rack up such debts? Presumably you can buy all the designer togs, fine jewellery, hairdressing, audio visual stuff across stores.

Harrods almost cert did same.

I don't see a huge issue with remembering that this is a family grieving as well as a state occasion.

It was agreed with the media beforehand that there wouldn't be any close-ups of grieving family and coverage would be sensitive.

I can understand independently funded outlets such as Sky agreeing an edit deal but I don't think the national broadcaster should even have been approached let alone rolled over.

I think the same of the royal 'request' never to broadcast the Diana interview in its entirety again. Auntie's original remit was to entertain and educate. How does royal revision fit with that if historic events can't now be replayed to the public in full?