AMW continuing his effort to end the monarchy part 4

[simpsonthecat]

New thread. This is not ending

Do you feel the same when the Wales DC are mentioned?

Yes. And time and time again on MN I have expressed that.so don't even think of coming at me with that one!

Leave the children alone

Not a bad article from Sean Coughlan of the BBC royal beat.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g0e92dp6ko

Royal finances. Obviously Andrew’s mentioned, and the Crown Estate PAC review.

Thanks @MyAutumnCrow just came to post the same. Finally the BBC are starting to provide more balanced articles about the royals - great to have Andrew Lownie and Republic not only mentioned but a picture of their recent protest pictured.

That is an interesting article. The trouble is... when the SG goes down (as it was due to because of completion of Buck House renovations) it will be spun as a frugal move by the Royal family when in fact it is nothing of the sort. I would like to think the finances were gone into in huge detail but I don't hold out much hope.

But times are changing, the deferential support of the Royals is fading a lot. About time!

Agree that it’s about time!

Thanks.

Good article but it misses some interesting detail in that the cost of repairs to BP were deemed to be affordable without an uptick in the existing grant as late as 2016 then suddenly ballooned to £369m without explanation yet were waved through by the May government.

Also worth noting no-one (even George Osborne who instigated it) has ever adequately explained the reasoning behind the transition from a fixed annual amount (Civil List) to the arbitrary linking of royal income to the profits from a state asset with the additional proviso the amount could go up but never be reduced.

It's heartening to see MP's finally ready to look at the bloated finances and the rent scams but I agree any decrease is highly likely to be spun as a selfless royal move.

I'd have a bit more faith if it was decided to stick them back on a fixed and robustly debated income and we saw B&E losing the keys to the ritzy London bolt hole rigged by Daddy.

We'll see.

From the article:

"The Duchy of Cornwall is changing. Our new strategy puts social and environmental impact at the heart of everything we do, ensuring the Duchy becomes a force for good in all the communities we serve. That means investing our time, resources and energy into initiatives that deliver meaningful, lasting benefit," said a Duchy spokesperson.

Guess the spokesperson hadn't heard about the destructive mining licences granted since W took over or about the poor grade accommodation the Duchy rents out.

https://apple.news/AKf10iddDTxq_mDYUUN098A

.

Thanks for the article, I've archived it here as it's behind a paywall

This bit sums it up .. William isn't stupid.
The latest revelation about their rental agreement comes amid renewed scrutiny over private property deals between the royal family and the Crown Estate

Intesting to read the previous tenant who was Chair of a party planning business, was paying £216,000 a year. The Wales are paying £317,000. All normal when tenants change and of course the rent will go up!

And of course that figure includes two cottages on the Estate for staff, the rent will be more to include them. What is of interest to me is how much they paid for refurbishment and I hope that was from his private pocket!

archive.ph/2XPW9

Lownie interview in the Telegraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/15/andrew-lownie-andrew-mountbatten-windsor/

Thank you for that @AnnunciataM

Here is an archived version because it's behind a paywall.
https://archive.ph/1CJWj

An interesting article and he comes across well in it. Of course those that don't like him for whatever reason (not liking what he has uncovered) won't think he comes across well at all. But to me, he comes across as honest. As he says...

As to the claim that he is harming the country by publishing such damaging information about the Royal family, Lownie clearly finds the idea faintly ridiculous. “The role of historian and journalist is to tell the truth. We can’t sugarcoat it just to protect them,” he says. “If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.”

I think his take on AMW, Sarah and indeed William are as I would think. Interesting to read that it appears the York daughters are lawyered up to prevent anything else coming out about them. No surprise there. The truth will come out. Eventually.

Oh, sorry, I don't have a Telegraph sub but I was still able to access so didn't realise it was behind the pay wall.

Interesting that Lownie says he spoke to Fergie while writing the book. And as you say, even more interesting that B&E have set their lawyers on him to stop him revealing more about their dealings in the updated book. Which makes you wonder what they're hiding!

I'm sure the Mail said they'd be running an extract this weekend that detailed those but I can't find it. Presumably that's what the lawyers have managed to stop.

Of course those that don't like him for whatever reason (not liking what he has uncovered) won't think he comes across well at all.

'Don't like him' and 'not liking what he has uncovered' is a false equivalence as far as I am concerned.

I don't know the man personally. I don't like his behaviour to date in the following ways:

-I disagree with disclosing child sexual abuse of a living person without that person's permission, as he did to AMW (abuse by teacher age 8, taken to prostitute age 11)
-I am uncomfortable with his description of personal hatred of AMW when at school
-I disliked his behaviour over the false story about William that was posted on his Substack account, supposedly by another writer, for these reasons: 1. This was the first time subscribers knew he wasn't writing the articles himself. 2. He delayed any apology on his Substack for a week while the story went around Twitter/X again. 3. When he did apologise on Substack he decided not to point out that the story was false (the originator having confessed to making it up years ago).
-I dislike his obvious glee over the salacious stories when he is interviewed (I have watched several).

Please note: I have objected to one thing only in his book.

I do know all that, you have posted before on this

I'm just glad a historian puts money and time behind meticulously researching members of the royal family. It is so needed.

I personally think he comes across well but we can disagree on that.

And to add, you really need to read the book to comment on it as a whole.

I also find it interesting that he is still pushing the fact (seen in previous print interviews) that no-one is picking up on his Prince Philip story - which isn't research but family gossip.

I think he's done the nation a service. Who knows how much would still be under wraps without his time, dedication and perseverance

Thanks for the articles.

Welcome news that W is paying a market rate for his latest forever home but It would be surprising if he wasn't given the upcoming spotlight on finances in the wake of the MW scandal.

Interesting that Bea and Euge have engaged lawyers to prevent further revelations being published in the paperback.

What can they have to hide?

Indeed!

Curiouser and curiouser 🤔

I agree completely.

Interesting that Bea and Euge have engaged lawyers to prevent further revelations being published in the paperback

What can they have to hide?

I can't answer that, @cathyorclaire, but while I'm no lawyer I'm not sure how an author could be sued for writing the truth ... providing of course that it is the truth and not based on gossip or some figment of their imagination

Edited to add I'm also very much with you on the Lownie issues, @bluegreygreen. I too have noticed the glee and it doesn't sit well for me

I wonder if the Yorks are trying to hide something to do with the Crown Estate / Royal Lodge / very large ‘refurbishment’ payments / Edo?

I think there is a book to be written about the royals and sexual abuse but it would need very careful handling.

If one looks at how a number of young female historical figures have been written about by male historians, it’s easy to see how ill-equipped many of these men are to be analytical and suitably compassionate about child subjects.