Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York by Andrew Lownie

[sophie25]

Andrew - his royal oafishness: Exposed in book Royals tried to ban

Jeffrey Epstein said of Prince Andrew: 'We are both serial sex addicts. He's the only person I have met who is more obsessed with p***y than me.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

This book will be explosive, no wonder the Yorks have fought hard to try and stop it coming out.

 

[hereditarytitles]

I'm currently reading the section about Andrew in Valentine Low's "Courtiers." He's being criticized quite harshly, and one gets the impression of his rather negative character.
I was surprised by the openness with which the author described Andrew, but the author relies on contemporary witnesses, not all of whom can lie. I also watched the unspeakable interview with Emily Maitlin back then, which gave me some insight.
If more revelations come out now, he'll probably lose even more of his reputation.

 

[tommy100]

Andrew had always been known to be an idiot. After all, anyone who isn’t sex obsessed and is vaguely normal and half a decent judge of character would have stopped seeing Epstein as soon as they saw some of the things he did or had in his house. This reminds us that Andrew wasn’t that different from Epstein in many way, just keeping it this side of legal.
The book recounts a lot of stories I’ve heard here and there before. I think the author, once the Yorks made it clear there was no cooperation to be had from them, has mainly relied on people who don’t like Andrew and have tales to tell. But still it shows how dreadful Andrew is.

Some 3,000 people were approached researching this book. Fewer than a tenth replied, but they included childhood friends, schoolmates, work colleagues, former staff (in spite of the NDAs), diplomats, charity workers, business associates, journalists who investigated the Yorks but were not allowed to publish their findings, friends and people who had encountered them in daily life.
From their contributions I have compiled Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York. It is the story of how a popular couple fell from grace because of the flaws in their own characters and how they were allowed to leverage their privileged position as royals for personal gain with the connivance of the institution itself.

 

[sophie25]

Andrew had always been known to be an idiot. After all, anyone who isn’t sex obsessed and is vaguely normal and half a decent judge of character would have stopped seeing Epstein as soon as they saw some of the things he did or had in his house. This reminds us that Andrew wasn’t that different from Epstein in many way, just keeping it this side of legal.
The book recounts a lot of stories I’ve heard here and there before. I think the author, once the Yorks made it clear there was no cooperation to be had from them, has mainly relied on people who don’t like Andrew and have tales to tell. But still it shows how dreadful Andrew is.

Well they could have cooperated and given a different side to the stories but my suspicion is that there is no different side.

 

[Lee-Z]

Thinking of that infamous interview Andrew did a few years back, likely intending to tell a different side; not cooperating with a book was probably the best choice.
I wonder how he feels now about that interview, if he realizes how he came across

 

[tommy100]

I don’t think he does at all. I think he doesn’t get the issue still. He told his mother it has gone well the next day after it was broadcast didn’t he?
As Courtiers by Valentine Low explains, Andrew wouldn’t even be coached on what to say and no one close to him tried hard enough.

Andrew needs someone who will stand up to him and tell him the truth, Philip may have done so some of the time, Anne probably would to a degree. But no one else.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It is indeed important to bear in mind that the persons who spoke to the author of “Entitled” represent only the 10% of the 3,000 approached acquaintances of the Duke of York who were the most willing (or eager) to discuss him with a critical, unauthorized biographer. And it speaks well of the biographer, Andrew Downie, that he is upfront about that fact.

Nevertheless, even making full allowance for the probable bias of those 300 people, the number of their stories (as shared in the Daily Mail’s excerpt from the book) reflect poorly on the Duke.

In a sense, none of it is “new”, insofar as accounts of the Duke behaving arrogantly, selfishly and rudely towards VIPs, friends and staff alike, driving illegally and dangerously, engaging in indiscriminate and/or harassing sexual behavior, and clashing with his family members have all circulated in the press before.

But the excerpt (and I assume there is more of the same in the book itself) gives a greater sense of scale. The impression one is left with is that those previously reported incidents were not the worst moments of the Duke’s life, but merely typical samples of behavior he engaged in regularly throughout his life.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

One of the excerpts from the above link:

"In 2005 after a heavy storm at Hillsborough Castle, Andrew asked the head of the household, David Anderson, if there was any damage. ‘Yes, sir,’ responded Anderson. ‘The tree which was planted by the Queen Mother.’ This was followed by a withering silence, then Andrew said in a mocking voice, ‘Did you mean Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother?’

He then asked the poor man how long he had worked for the Royal Family. Anderson replied, ‘I joined in 1984, sir.’ ‘And you still don’t know the proper way to refer to my grandmother? You f***ing imbecile. Get out.’"​

What is "imbecilic" about referring to the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother as "the Queen Mother"?

A recurring topic of discussion here is whether or how much royals themselves care about titles. In the case of the Duke of York, the answer appears to be "very deeply".

 

[Prinsara]

What is "imbecilic" about referring to the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother as "the Queen Mother"?

Nothing unless you are a small man on a power trip; especially considering there was no other “Queen Mother”, and it’s the job of true royalty to be gracious whatever their actual station.

His aunt Margaret was reportedly similarly vehement about people’s full titles, but I haven’t heard of anybody else.

I also really doubt Andrew cared. He just wanted to put someone down.

 

[sophie25]

It is indeed important to bear in mind that the persons who spoke to the author of “Entitled” represent only the 10% of the 3,000 approached acquaintances of the Duke of York who were the most willing (or eager) to discuss him with a critical, unauthorized biographer. And it speaks well of the biographer, Andrew Downie, that he is upfront about that fact.

Nevertheless, even making full allowance for the probable bias of those 300 people, the number of their stories (as shared in the Daily Mail’s excerpt from the book) reflect poorly on the Duke.

In a sense, none of it is “new”, insofar as accounts of the Duke behaving arrogantly, selfishly and rudely towards VIPs, friends and staff alike, driving illegally and dangerously, engaging in indiscriminate and/or harassing sexual behavior, and clashing with his family members have all circulated in the press before.

But the excerpt (and I assume there is more of the same in the book itself) gives a greater sense of scale. The impression one is left with is that those previously reported incidents were not the worst moments of the Duke’s life, but merely typical samples of behavior he engaged in regularly throughout his life.

Lownie also approached the Foreign and Coomenwealth Office and at least 2 other Government departments about Andrew's official activities and was shut down every time. He requested this under the 'Freedom of Information Act' which public figures are generally held account under but with Andrew he was blocked off. Why?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Lownie also approached the Foreign and Coomenwealth Office and at least 2 other Government departments about Andrew's official activities and was shut down every time. He requested this under the 'Freedom of Information Act' which public figures are generally held account under but with Andrew he was blocked off. Why?

That at least is not unique to the Duke of York. Andrew Lownie has also written of being stonewalled as he conducted research for his recent biography of the late 1st Earl Mountbatten, and of a general culture of secrecy impeding research into royal history.

Open the royal files | Andrew Lownie | The Critic Magazine

A culture of gratuitous opacity surrounds the Royal Family…

thecritic.co.uk

The historian whose study of the Mountbattens was thwarted

It's 40 years since Lord Mountbatten was murdered by the IRA, a death and a life still mired in controversy and mystery.

www.express.co.uk

 

[sophie25]

That at least is not unique to the Duke of York. Andrew Lownie has also written of being stonewalled as he conducted research for his recent biography of the late 1st Earl Mountbatten, and of a general culture of secrecy impeding research into royal history.

Open the royal files | Andrew Lownie | The Critic Magazine

A culture of gratuitous opacity surrounds the Royal Family…

thecritic.co.uk

The historian whose study of the Mountbattens was thwarted

It's 40 years since Lord Mountbatten was murdered by the IRA, a death and a life still mired in controversy and mystery.

www.express.co.uk

True, the Government of the day do tend to protect certain people.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

A preview from the soon to be published biography "Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York" by Andrew Downie discusses the relationship between the Duke of York and the Duke of Sussex. Most notably, it reports that in 2013, a physical fight between uncle and nephew took place. (The excerpt does not explicitly state which prince became violent, though the context would seem to suggest it was (allegedly) Prince Harry.)

"In January 2021 the Royal Family held a summit about Andrew at which it was agreed there was no way back for him because of the reputational damage he was causing the monarchy and his ‘ungracious and ungrateful’ attitude. Andrew’s relationship with his nephews was also a problem.

At a family gathering in 2013, Harry and Andrew had got into a heated argument, and punches were thrown over something Andrew said behind Harry’s back. According to a source close to both men, Harry told him he was a coward not to say it to his face.

Harry got the better of Andrew by all accounts, leaving him with a bloody nose before the fight was broken up.

Later Andrew told Harry his marriage to Meghan Markle would not last more than a month and accused his nephew of going ‘bonkers’ and not doing any due diligence into her past. He openly accused Meghan of being an opportunist and thought she was too old for Harry, adding that his nephew was making the biggest mistake ever.

The source said: ‘Harry later told William he hated Andrew.’"

Andrew - his royal oafishness: Exposed in book Royals tried to ban

Jeffrey Epstein said of Prince Andrew: 'We are both serial sex addicts. He's the only person I have met who is more obsessed with p***y than me.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

A spokesperson for the Duke of Sussex responded:

“I can confirm Prince Harry and Prince Andrew have never had a physical fight, nor did Prince Andrew ever make the comments he is alleged to have made about the Duchess of Sussex to Prince Harry.”

Access Restricted

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I do not think the recently published excerpt from Andrew Downie’s new biography of the Duke of York (see here for the main discussion: Prince Andrew, Duke of York News and Events 8: Sep 2022 -) allows for any firm conclusions on what the Duke of York thought, said and did in regards to Virginia Roberts (later Giuffre) and Jeffrey Epstein. However, I think it touches on certain points addressed in earlier discussions in this thread.

“A Reuters correspondent reported that, when Andrew represented the British monarch at the King of Thailand’s diamond jubilee celebrations in 2006, more than 40 women were brought to his hotel room in Bangkok during his stay: ‘Often, as soon as one left, another would arrive.’

Hotel staff were used to foreigners bringing in girls, but amazed that more than 10 a day were going to Andrew’s room.

[...] a family friend said: ‘He’s not a hunter of women. He rather expects them to come to him. But when they do, he shows himself to be bone idle and not very socially adept at chatting them up.’

According to a source, he likes to have his women handed to him on a plate, ‘and the shorter the skirt the better’. Friends acted as matchmakers. Otherwise he would use his staff. He would spy out an attractive ballerina at the Royal Ballet and then send one of them to the stage door to invite her to meet the prince.

Other variations included sending aides to invite girls to his table at the Chinawhite night club in London or come to his hotel suite when abroad.”

Andrew - his royal oafishness: Exposed in book Royals tried to ban

Jeffrey Epstein said of Prince Andrew: 'We are both serial sex addicts. He's the only person I have met who is more obsessed with p***y than me.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

Both those who give the Duke of York the benefit of the doubt and those who accuse him of lying have asked rhetorically how he could have had sexual relations with Virginia Roberts and not remember it. His critics have also asked rhetorically how he could possibly have interacted with Virginia Roberts without suspecting she was abused and trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein.

If Mr. Lownie’s anonymous sources’ comments are a more or less accurate representation, it would seem to me that the indiscriminate informal strategies of procuring sexual partners via friends and aides that the sources describe are not exactly conducive to rigorously ensuring that none of the women were abused or trafficked, and that when temporarily encountering 10 new women each day, it must be difficult to remember them all years later.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My understanding is that Andrew Downie is a serious biographer, and I am sure he has made some effort to verify his sources' accounts, but as an initial reaction, some of the anecdotes verge on parody:

“Once playing golf in a group of four, Andrew hit an especially good shot on to the green. One of the other golfers said: ‘Good shot.’ The prince fired back instantly: ‘That’s good shot, sir, for you.’

If he walked into a room and people didn’t acknowledge his presence, he’s been known to clear his throat, say, ‘Let’s try that again’, leave the room and come back to make sure everybody stands, bows and curtseys.
[…]
Lucy, a former stylist who dated him, was surprised that when she offered to take him to the cinema and said she’d buy the tickets, he expected her to get all seven, to include his security.”

[...] maids [were] summoned from four floors below to open the curtains beside him. […]

‘Apparently his bedtime habits as a single man left a lot to be desired,’ she [Wendy Berry, the housekeeper at Highgrove whose son worked at Buckingham Palace] said. ‘A collection of scrunched-up, soiled tissues usually lay scattered around the bed each morning for staff to collect after they had made his bed.’
[...]
One day a train taking the duke to Birmingham was cancelled and he was told he could wait in the VIP lounge for the hour until the next one departed. He was furious […] He flicked his hand and shouted: ‘That train over there, for example, why can’t they divert that train to Birmingham?’”​

 

[Curryong]

Actually, I can’t imagine anything like that happening either. I don’t think Andrew was ever really close to either of the then Wales boys, but they were probably reasonable cordial whenever they met, which wouldn’t have been often.

 

[jesam]

A preview from the soon to be published biography "Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York" by Andrew Downie discusses the relationship between the Duke of York and the Duke of Sussex. Most notably, it reports that in 2013, a physical fight between uncle and nephew took place. (The excerpt does not explicitly state which prince became violent, though the context would seem to suggest it was (allegedly) Prince Harry.)

"In January 2021 the Royal Family held a summit about Andrew at which it was agreed there was no way back for him because of the reputational damage he was causing the monarchy and his ‘ungracious and ungrateful’ attitude. Andrew’s relationship with his nephews was also a problem.​

​

At a family gathering in 2013, Harry and Andrew had got into a heated argument, and punches were thrown over something Andrew said behind Harry’s back. According to a source close to both men, Harry told him he was a coward not to say it to his face.​

​

Harry got the better of Andrew by all accounts, leaving him with a bloody nose before the fight was broken up.​

​

Later Andrew told Harry his marriage to Meghan Markle would not last more than a month and accused his nephew of going ‘bonkers’ and not doing any due diligence into her past. He openly accused Meghan of being an opportunist and thought she was too old for Harry, adding that his nephew was making the biggest mistake ever.​

​

The source said: ‘Harry later told William he hated Andrew.’"​

​

Andrew - his royal oafishness: Exposed in book Royals tried to ban

Jeffrey Epstein said of Prince Andrew: 'We are both serial sex addicts. He's the only person I have met who is more obsessed with p***y than me.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

A spokesperson for the Duke of Sussex responded:

“I can confirm Prince Harry and Prince Andrew have never had a physical fight, nor did Prince Andrew ever make the comments he is alleged to have made about the Duchess of Sussex to Prince Harry.”​

​

Access Restricted

You wrote this:

(The excerpt does not explicitly state which prince became violent, though the context would seem to suggest it was (allegedly) Prince Harry.)

But it's in the article you have posted that it was Harry:

"Harry got the better of Andrew by all accounts, leaving him with a bloody nose before the fight was broken up."

 

[jesam]

Actually, I can’t imagine anything like that happening either. I don’t think Andrew was ever really close to either of the then Wales boys, but they were probably reasonable cordial whenever they met, which wouldn’t have been often.

Harry has always seemed close to the York family. He went on a skiing holiday to Verbier with his ex, Cressida Bonas, along with Prince Andrew, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters Beatrice and Eugenie. He introduced Meghan to the late Queen at Royal Lodge — Andrew and Sarah’s home. He also never criticized Andrew in his book Spare or in any interviews. And now, when a negative story about Andrew circulated, Harry publicly corrected it within a day — much faster than he ever responded to misinformation about his own immediate family.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I can remember the Verbier holiday when Harry and Cressida (a friend of Eugenie) were first dating but not anything particularly close in the years since, though all the Yorks of course came to the Sussex wedding.

Nevertheless, close or not, and I do think Harry quite liked Sarah whenever they met, I don’t think there were any fisticuffs or quarrels between Harry and his uncle.

 

[Queen Claude]

To me this would also explain why Andrew settled, possibly under duress from certain family members and courtiers. Even though he may not have known Virginia Roberts Giuffre's age or that she was trafficked, it seems like having (presumably) anonymous sexual encounters are not out of the ordinary for Andrew, and yet he adamantly denied having sex with Ms. Giuffre, stating something to the effect that sex is a special act and therefore having sex with someone is not something he would forget.

ETA:

Prince Andrew 'categorically' denies sex claims​

17 November 2019
The Duke of York has "categorically" denied having any sexual contact with an American woman, who says she was forced to have sex with him aged 17.

Prince Andrew 'categorically' denies sex claims

The prince tells the BBC he has "no recollection" of meeting a US woman who says she was forced to have sex with him.

www.bbc.com

 

[Alison H]

Who are these "sources"? Unless Harry and Andrew were having a punch-up in public, who would know if this so-called fight ever happened?

 

[Hallo girl]

My understanding is that Andrew Downie is a serious biographer, and I am sure he has made some effort to verify his sources' accounts, but as an initial reaction, some of the anecdotes verge on parody:

“Once playing golf in a group of four, Andrew hit an especially good shot on to the green. One of the other golfers said: ‘Good shot.’ The prince fired back instantly: ‘That’s good shot, sir, for you.’​

​

If he walked into a room and people didn’t acknowledge his presence, he’s been known to clear his throat, say, ‘Let’s try that again’, leave the room and come back to make sure everybody stands, bows and curtseys.​

[…]​

Lucy, a former stylist who dated him, was surprised that when she offered to take him to the cinema and said she’d buy the tickets, he expected her to get all seven, to include his security.”​

​

[...] maids [were] summoned from four floors below to open the curtains beside him. […]​

​

‘Apparently his bedtime habits as a single man left a lot to be desired,’ she [Wendy Berry, the housekeeper at Highgrove whose son worked at Buckingham Palace] said. ‘A collection of scrunched-up, soiled tissues usually lay scattered around the bed each morning for staff to collect after they had made his bed.’​

[...]​

One day a train taking the duke to Birmingham was cancelled and he was told he could wait in the VIP lounge for the hour until the next one departed. He was furious […] He flicked his hand and shouted: ‘That train over there, for example, why can’t they divert that train to Birmingham?’”​

I know what you mean by parody, we know he is oafish, and arrogant, he has shown it many times.
If the cinema story was that he expected a private showing I would have found that easier to believe. He expected the young woman to pay for 7 tickets to include his security, is the author saying there were 5 security men with him.
From the excerpts he is being shown as a man who is totally removed from every day life, the train is an example, yet this is a man who was a career naval officer. He could have been removed from the Falklands but it was reported at the time that he insisted on going. As far as I am aware there was never any stories of him shirking his responsibilities at this time, that will maybe come out in the full edition of the book of course.

I am not defending him as I do believe he is arrogant and oafish but I believe in fairness.

 

[Queen Claude]

I interpreted that the physical altercation happened in front of people, likely family and / or staff. It is interesting though that Harry, rather promptly, issued a denial.

To me even if the incident happened, Andrew and Harry clearly made up because there were chummy interactions between Harry and the Yorks after 2013. He is clearly close to Eugenie, but the incident that sticks out is that Meghan met The Queen at the Royal Lodge, Andrew's home. IIRC Harry and Meghan were on their way to the Royal Lodge for lunch when they got word that The Queen would be dropping by after church, so they were not heading there to meet The Queen, they were heading to the Royal Lodge to have lunch with the Yorks.

 

[Heavs]

The Sussexes both publicly mentioned the Yorks post Jan 2020 as supportive. Eugenie was publicly supportive for a while. It was remarked on at the time because there were articles wondering about the Epstein allegations and why did they want to be associated with him, but it turned out they only had nice things to say about each other.

 

[Curryong]

Well, it sounds as if Andrew lived up to his Press nickname of Randy Andy! If his name had been Joe Blow and he acted in the way he did he would have been quickly thrown out of the hotel, I expect.

 

[Maryrose]

I think if the photograph of Andrew and Virginia with Ghislaine in the background didn't exist it would have been a he said/she said outcome. I think he settled too because after that interview if he went to court to defend himself it would have been a nightmare for the RF. He is his own worst enemy.

 

[hereditarytitles]

Seems like a pretty interesting book to me. I admit that I feel a certain glee, if not satisfaction, that Andrew's character, his stupidity, arrogance, unfair treatment of employees, and sexual exploitation of women, is being made widely known to the public. I don't see any positive character trait that has made him stand out. His best time was probably his military service during the Falklands War and the subsequent acclaim he received as a hero.

Considering all of this, it's no wonder he refuses to leave Royal Lodge, which is far too big for him, for smaller accommodations. He probably thinks it's befitting his status, conceited as he is.
I always hope that such people will eventually receive punishment for their behavior. He obviously has, because being excluded from all official events must be very frustrating for him. That doesn't leave him much to do with his time other than riding.

 

[Toledo]

I think if the photograph of Andrew and Virginia with Ghislaine in the background didn't exist it would have been a he said/she said outcome. I think he settled too because after that interview if he went to court to defend himself it would have been a nightmare for the RF. He is his own worst enemy.

Agreed. And here is my take on his denial:
He and everyone involved with Epstein that is a celebrity or politician will never admit anything involving on trafficking or Epstein providing an environment for these people to go and get involved with minors. Any admission has prison cells at the other end waiting, or public shame and rejection 'till the end of their lives.

Without placing blame on any victim, young people groups do really stupid things, mostly out of desperation to be independent or for money, or a need to feel more grown up and hanging around celebrities. To this day it still happens when young people are rounded by celebrity hired party scouts to find fillers that attend celebrity parties that go wild. I was watching a YouTube stand up comedian last week and his guest sidekick described how he got in a van bus full of young people rounded up to attend a party at a rich mansion outside NYC. Literally they were part of a 'menu' being offered. And the comedian saw this as totally something that happens in these private events.

The recent court case of the celebrity rapper/businessman is an example on the culture around these parties involving young people used a party attendant fillers and very adult celebrities.

Yet, after years go by, these young people have the right to look back and regret what they did. They have more experience now to see they were used, and often abused, by the older people that were in control of these situations. And they do have the right to expose the predators even if, at the time, participated on these trips with people like Epstein knowing what would happen next.

But once that crazy youth phase is in the past and the reality hits them years later, these victims have the right to expose this was a crime done to them as minors.

 

[Toledo]

Who are these "sources"? Unless Harry and Andrew were having a punch-up in public, who would know if this so-called fight ever happened?

I doubt there was a physical altercation and, if it was out of an argument, neither men would seem to be likely taking advice from one another. The story is like those tales repeated by several people in a line that gets embellished with more drama added in. Harry had a book out, well by a ghost writer, but do you think the editor would have left this scandal out considering it made Harry look good when put in a situation against his uncle?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

You wrote this:

(The excerpt does not explicitly state which prince became violent, though the context would seem to suggest it was (allegedly) Prince Harry.)

But it's in the article you have posted that it was Harry:

"Harry got the better of Andrew by all accounts, leaving him with a bloody nose before the fight was broken up."

The phrase “got the better of” denotes that Prince Harry “won” the fight, not necessarily that he started it (though that would be my assumption given the context).

And now, when a negative story about Andrew circulated, Harry publicly corrected it within a day — much faster than he ever responded to misinformation about his own immediate family.

but do you think the editor would have left this scandal out considering it made Harry look good when put in a situation against his uncle?

For me a story of a nephew allegedly becoming physically violent against his uncle, especially without any provocation (other than the uncle allegedly talking about him behind his back), is negative and a bad look for the nephew. I hope I am not alone in my view, but who knows.

The Sussexes both publicly mentioned the Yorks post Jan 2020 as supportive. Eugenie was publicly supportive for a while. It was remarked on at the time because there were articles wondering about the Epstein allegations and why did they want to be associated with him, but it turned out they only had nice things to say about each other.

Wasn't it just Princess Eugenie whom they mentioned as supportive post-January 2020, rather than her parents?

A “friend” of the Duchess of Sussex briefed in 2019 that the Duke of York’s Epstein interview "left everyone watching it wanting to curl under a table. It just got worse and worse and worse". Certainly milder criticism than he was receiving on social media, but criticism nonetheless.

Access Restricted