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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I have been wondering for some time why Fergie has remained so active lately, both with performances abroad and with charity projects. After reading these excerpts from the book, the question arises as to whether she will continue to act as described in the book. I think that a person like her wouldn't have completely changed.
 
If I were Charles I would keep Sarah away from the royal enclosure at Ascot, royal box at Wimbledon etc. I do wonder why she is appearing in these places more frequently, as well as Easter Sunday this year and Christmas Day a couple of years back. The late Queen liked her but kept her away from most of these events but she is more visible during the new reign even without Andrew being around. It's very odd as Charles was never her greatest fan.
 
maria-olivia said:
I did not know the Duchess used the money for Charities for herself ! A shame for the House of York.
Click to expand...


Yeah. I don’t remember being aware of that either. Terrible behavior.

She and Andrew do have a lot of similar character traits. While I think it’s nice that they got along well post split and provided stability for their girls- it doesn’t seem likely that they brought out the best in each other. Probably more likely they enabled each other quite a bit.
 
Did the late Queen knew all about Andrew and Sarah's since years behaviours ?
What will be now the Reaction of the two Princesses and husbands about their parents ??
 
This is all so awful and stirring up a lot of old things for Sarah. I really feel sorry for her daughters. Can you imagine e a book like this coming out about your parents…. :shock:
 
Royalist.in.NC said:
This is all so awful and stirring up a lot of old things for Sarah. I really feel sorry for her daughters. Can you imagine e a book like this coming out about your parents…. :shock:
Click to expand...
I know it's cringe worthy, to say the very least, for the girls. I also think that, lease or no lease, his time in Royal Lodge is drawing to a close, one way or another.
 
I'm always intrigued by Charles' new found acceptance and invitations to Sarah.

She has always been known to be rubbish with money, and I suspect Charles will have known a bit more about the times HLM had to bail her out. She was exposed as trading on her royal links years ago so letting her back in is at the least questionable IMO.

However, I do think Charles must be actually closer to Sarah than we knew realise. I mean, it would make sense as her father was his polo manager for a long time (and btw resigned from that post after it was revealed he had been a member of a club where men were able to get massages of a questionable nature) so the links between Charles and Sarah are not without merit.
 
Through it all, I tend to think overall Sarah is a nice person, well-meaning, but she has had no forethought whatsever about her actions, she's made silly moves, poor choices, bad decisions, the list goes on. Being Royal, having had too much money (and not enough) and the publicity; all have done her no favours. I think both Sarah and Diana might have been happier if they had settled down to a more normal life with a normal husband and a normal family, just my opinion and I might be way out, however we will never know.

As for Andrew, words fail me. Perhaps if his rambunctiousness, arrogance and self-aggrandisement had been reigned in as a child we might not have got to this point. And yet his siblings appear to have turned out fine. What was it in his personality that led him down such a dissolute path?

And yet, these two appear to have produced two bright, well-adjusted daughters, who appear to have inherited none of their parents' faults...

Regarding charities, in my naive youth I used to think charity founders were doing good things out of the kindness of their heart; as I've gained maturity I now know it's a way of making money.
 
tommy100 said:
A lot of this seems old news - though of course still shocking. This feels a bit more like a rehashing of old articles, stories and anecdotes all put into one new book.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification. A Telegraph article quotes anonymous "sources" (I think the implication is that they are from the York camp) saying the same.

Nevertheless, since much of the material Mr. Lownie is rehashing from old articles and documentaries is from the 1980s to 2000s, many (most?) people will either be too young or new to have read them when they were first published or will have forgotten them after such a long passage of time, so the book is freshly damaging to the Duke and Duchess of York in that sense.
 
The fifth and final serialized extract from "Entitled", concerning the marriage and post-divorce relationship of the Duke and Duchess of York:

www.dailymail.co.uk

How Andrew slept with 'a dozen women' within a year of marrying Fergie

When the new couple returned to Buckingham Palace for the balcony appearance, a crowd of 250,000 people chanted, 'We want a kiss.' The young girl had her prince. The fairy tale came true.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

How Prince Andrew slept with 'a dozen women' within a year of marryin…

archived 6 Aug 2025 13:31:24 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph

I must admit the previous extracts had me wondering why the couple divorced in the first place, but according to this one, their marital relationship did have its issues.
 
Will the Affair from Andrew ans Sarah in this book this disturb HM Balmoral holiday ??
 
It's disturbing to see the depths this marriage has sunk to. Maybe I'm too “normal” to understand why this couple still lives in the same house after everything they've been through together. There was always speculation that they would remarry, but they wouldn' gain anything from it.

Perhaps it is a relationship of convenience. Andrew, who is still confident that he can continue to live in the large house, grants his ex-wife the privilege of living there as well. That is kind of him, even though he probably does not personally pay the costs associated with this house, including the staff. In this way, they both benefit. Where else could Sarah live to maintain her extravagant lifestyle?
Ultimately, it will be up to Charles, as king, to decide how things will proceed.

He lets them be, and as long as the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for it, that's fine. Imagine if he kicked them out of the Royal Lodge; he would be seen as antisocial and heartless.
 
They did seem genuinely happy and well-suited. I think she struggled with him being away so much. If you marry someone who's in the Armed Forces, then you have to accept that, but I'm not sure that she'd thought it through properly. And, as someone who's always struggled with their weight, I felt very sorry for her over all those "Duchess of Pork" jibes. We can't all be naturally slim and stylish.

I'm surprised by the suggestion that Andrew was unfaithful so early on in the marriage. It's an old joke that sailors have a girl in every port, but he and Sarah did seem like a genuine love match. But he sounds like someone who's just incapable of being faithful to one person.

Will it bother the King whilst he's on holiday? I doubt he's given it a second thought. "Spare" made the headlines in every newspaper and on the TV news, but very little notice is being taken of this book.
 
I think King Charles tolerates Andrew and Fergie, as his brother and sister-in-law, and perhaps even feels a little sorry for them. And possibly also for the sake of their daughters, who have done little wrong.
However I do think things will be very different under the reign of King William - Uncle Andrew and Aunt Sarah will be relegated to the most far-flung 'aunt-and-uncle-heap' possible, although he may well welcome the Princesses and their families into the Royal fold.
 
A para from the book as taken from the DM:

But the Royal Family were having none of it. Among those most opposed to remarriage were Prince Charles, Princess Margaret, Prince Edward (who had not invited Sarah to his wedding, in spite of her daughters being bridesmaids) and Prince Philip, who accused her of 'living in the land of Nod'. A source said: 'I think that if his father had not been so set against it, he would have remarried her at one stage.'

The York sisters were not bridesmaids for Edward and Sophie; a glaring mistake.

And another questionable 'fact':

The father of the groom and mother of the bride – lovers 20 years earlier – sat in the third carriage waving to the crowds. Prince Philip and Susan Barrantes, whose former husband was Prince Charles's polo manager, had been part of the same social circle for years. Now they were together publicly celebrating the marriage...

I doubt Philip and Fergie's mum were 'lovers'; I've never read such a thing even being suggested.
 
Telegraph royal reporter Hannah Furness wrote an article about another passage from “Entitled”.

Prince Andrew lost his virginity at 11, biography claims

archived 7 Aug 2025 17:20:23 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph

"Under a subheading of “Randy Andy” […] the book quotes an unnamed source as saying that his early sexual activity explains “why he’s spent most of his adult life at high risk of self-abuse, depression, and risky sexual encounters”.

It reads: “According to a source close to Andrew, he had his first sexual experience aged eight and lost his virginity at 11...”

The book goes on to claim, through the same source: “He admitted that his second sexual experience came before he turned 12 and when he was 13 he had already slept with more than half-a-dozen girls.

“I believe this might be the root of Andrew’s problems,” said the source.

The Duke’s team did not respond to the claims when approached by The Telegraph. Nor did Buckingham Palace, which no longer officially represents the Duke.

When asked about the claims, a source who knows the Duke said he has previously “alluded to sexual experiences at what most of us would consider as too young an age, poor chap”.

“The Duke’s personal story is far more complex than people realise or have ever been prepared to properly consider,” they added."​


:previous:

The following is probably not the most important of the many questions raised by these two anonymous sources and the reporting of their comments, but I wonder why the Telegraph headline chooses to highlight the “lost his virginity at 11” quote rather than the “he had his first sexual experience aged eight” quote.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
Telegraph royal reporter Hannah Furness wrote an article about another passage from “Entitled”.

Prince Andrew lost his virginity at 11, biography claims

archived 7 Aug 2025 17:20:23 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph

"Under a subheading of “Randy Andy” […] the book quotes an unnamed source as saying that his early sexual activity explains “why he’s spent most of his adult life at high risk of self-abuse, depression, and risky sexual encounters”.​
​
It reads: “According to a source close to Andrew, he had his first sexual experience aged eight and lost his virginity at 11...”​
​
The book goes on to claim, through the same source: “He admitted that his second sexual experience came before he turned 12 and when he was 13 he had already slept with more than half-a-dozen girls.​
​
“I believe this might be the root of Andrew’s problems,” said the source.​
​
The Duke’s team did not respond to the claims when approached by The Telegraph. Nor did Buckingham Palace, which no longer officially represents the Duke.​
​
When asked about the claims, a source who knows the Duke said he has previously “alluded to sexual experiences at what most of us would consider as too young an age, poor chap”.​
​
“The Duke’s personal story is far more complex than people realise or have ever been prepared to properly consider,” they added."​


:previous:

The following is probably not the most important of the many questions raised by these two anonymous sources and the reporting of their comments, but I wonder why the Telegraph headline chooses to highlight the “lost his virginity at 11” quote rather than the “he had his first sexual experience aged eight” quote.
Click to expand...
If this information about Andrew's alleged first sexual experience(s) is true, then it is very disturbing. And yes it would have occurred at an age when he would be far too young.
 
This evening Andrew Lownie was a guest on Jacob Rees-Mogg's GB News show. Jacob obviously did not approve of the book, particularly the item about the late HRH Prince Philip and Susan Barrantes. JRM also questioned the somewhat opaque sources for all of the lurid anecdotes and snippets regarding the DoY and Sarah.
 
TLLK said:
If this information about Andrew's alleged first sexual experience(s) is true, then it is very disturbing. And yes it would have occurred at an age when he would be far too young.
Click to expand...

I suppose the best-case (but still disturbing) scenario would be if the details given by the first source were invented or grossly distorted by a source attempting to win sympathy for the Duke of York, especially in the context of the Duke being accused of sexually abusing a teenager.

Strictly speaking, the two anonymous sources did not allege sexual abuse (at least not in the Telegraph’s quotes). Taken at face value, “he had his first sexual experience aged eight” could refer to an experience with another eight-year-old.

However, the “poor chap” comment from the second source, and the comment from the book’s author Andrew Lownie (who is quite clearly no fan of the Duke of York) that he included the claim because “I think he [Andrew], in some ways, has been a victim. It does make him much more sympathetic, in a way” seem to point in one direction as to what the sources were implying.
 
I'm sorry, but I simply cannot believe the anonymous allegations about Andrew's sexual experiences as a child, and we are talking about an age when he had not even reached puberty.
I assume that he grew up in a protected environment at that age and attended a private school. How and where would he have found sexual partners? There is no mention of abuse, where one might assume that older men or women abused him as a child.
And where did the source get this information? Were they involved themselves, or did someone confide in them?
To me, it sounds implausible.
 
I'm increasingly disinclined to take anything in this book seriously. Ingrid Seward's book about Prince Philip suggested that he had an affair with Susan Barrantes, which I assume is where Andrew Lownie got it from; but it was a load of rubbish.
 
Leopoldine said:
This evening Andrew Lownie was a guest on Jacob Rees-Mogg's GB News show. Jacob obviously did not approve of the book, particularly the item about the late HRH Prince Philip and Susan Barrantes. JRM also questioned the somewhat opaque sources for all of the lurid anecdotes and snippets regarding the DoY and Sarah.
Click to expand...
I just catch up the interview on Youtube (starting from 50:50) and it was quite uncomfortable to watch with backwards & forwards bickering and mud slinging. This might be the first time I saw Jacob Rees-Mogg so riled up at the "State of the Nation Book Club". Even when he interviewed Tessa Dunlop on her book, it was very cordial despite both having very opposing viewpoints on politics.

Andrew Lownie also appeared on the Daily T podcast, Talk TV and Good Morning Britain (Ed Balls also a former politician turned TV presenter). All three of these interviews are less argumentative.
 
irish_royalist said:
I think King Charles tolerates Andrew and Fergie, as his brother and sister-in-law, and perhaps even feels a little sorry for them. And possibly also for the sake of their daughters, who have done little wrong.
However I do think things will be very different under the reign of King William - Uncle Andrew and Aunt Sarah will be relegated to the most far-flung 'aunt-and-uncle-heap' possible, although he may well welcome the Princesses and their families into the Royal fold.
Click to expand...
I think it also makes sense to keep Andrew and Sarah in the fold. They have demonstrated that they are not the sharpest people, and if left completely isolated, they may mix with more unsavoury characters. So my guess is that the calculation made by C&C is that it is better to keep Sarah "in the tent" than outside.
 
The book is not saying anything that we didn't know before. Andrew kickbacks from this time as a UK envoy, were well known and published by the press. His connection with Epstein is also well documented.

Why the royal house and the government did nothing about it, it's a whole different issue.
 
Just to clarify, without expressing an opinion on the claim’s believability:

hereditarytitles said:
And where did the source get this information? Were they involved themselves, or did someone confide in them?
Click to expand...

According to the extracts from the book, the two sources both claim the Duke of York told them.

The first “source close to [Prince] Andrew” is quoted saying “He [the Duke] admitted that [...]”. The second “source who knows the Duke” is quoted saying that the Duke previously “alluded to […]”.

(Full excerpt in post #80: Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York by Andrew Lownie)


hereditarytitles said:
I assume that he grew up in a protected environment at that age and attended a private school.
How and where would he have found sexual partners? There is no mention of abuse, where one might assume that older men or women abused him as a child.
Click to expand...

According to his old website, Prince Andrew was homeschooled by a “governess” until age 8, then began attending Heatherdown Preparatory School (an elite boys’ boarding school) in Ascot, England, until age 13, when he moved to Gordounstoun School (an elite co-educational boarding school) in Morayshire, Scotland.

The source doesn’t seem to state where or with whom the “first sexual experience aged eight” or subsequent experiences at age 11-12 allegedly occurred. Thus, the school setting may or may not have been involved, even if all the source’s details are accurate. During the year he was aged eight, Prince Andrew was only enrolled in school for part of the year.

There have been many reported incidents (not involving royals, as far as I know) of both consensual sexual experimentation between students and nonconsensual sexual abuse by other students and staff at elite British boarding schools (hence the “safeguarding policies” many have adopted in recent decades in regard to the latter), so that aspect of the stories is not implausible in and of itself, even if the school(s) was the setting (which the source does not specify).

For example, here is a 2024 report into child abuse, including but not limited to sexual abuse, at Gordonstoun School, focusing on the 1960s to 1990s:

Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry | Case Study no. 9: Volume 3

www.childabuseinquiry.scot www.childabuseinquiry.scot
A summary: Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry | Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry publishes twelfth case study findings
 
Focussing on the book claims about Andrew sexuality as child (a person under 18) is always going to be difficult to prove. What it's a fact is his dealings with Epstein as an adult, most of which we are still in the dark about. The traffic of minors, Epstein was in charge of, was at the centre of high level sexual corruption in the US and the UK. Unless the Epstein files are released (which won't happen) we don't know the full extent of Andrew involvement with minors recruited for sex.

I find it unbelievable that anyone (even the staunchest monarchists) can find excuses for this awful man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

norwegianne
"Matriarch - Queen Mary and the House of Windsor" by Anne Edwards (1984)
Replies
15
Views
9K
pgm1952
P

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom