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

[hereditarytitles]

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.

I haven't read in this forum nor anywhere else that there are people who excuse Andrew's behavior. Unless you mean when people like me have questions about so-called “sources.”

I don't think that all those facts about Andrew were known. Many new and very disturbing details about Andrew and Sarah are now coming to light, some of which we have learned about in general terms from the press, but not nearly in this detailed fashion.
It is also well known that he always denied his long-standing relationship with Epstein, both financially and sexually. The fact that he did not want a trial but instead took money from his mother to pay Virginia G. speaks volumes. If he had been completely innocent, he would not have done so.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

I know from previous discussions on here that some people never believed Virginia Giuffre's accusations. So what is interesting in this context is that the author of this book says that he spoke to several people who saw Andrew at Epstein's New York City house as well as well Epstein's island frequently, and saw him there with young women. Among them Epstein's housekeeper...
There are also apparently people who say they saw Andrew at Tramp nightclub on the night in question (though the author got this from second-hand sources). I wish someone had looked into this - people who could corroborate Virginia's story - years ago...

Also interesting is the fact that the author's mother-in-law went to school with Sarah's mother.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

Oh and Andrew Lownie says that Amy Robach of ABC was working on a TV program about Virginia's accusations years before they eventually came out. Buckingham Palace threatened ABC that they would never again get access to William & Catherine's events if they went ahead with this program and ABC backed down.

 

[Maryrose]

Oh and Andrew Lownie says that Amy Robach of ABC was working on a TV program about Virginia's accusations years before they eventually came out. Buckingham Palace threatened ABC that they would never again get access to William & Catherine's events if they went ahead with this program and ABC backed down.

There is a video of her talking about this and I may be wrong but I don't think she realized her mic was on.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

There is a video of her talking about this and I may be wrong but I don't think she realized her mic was on.

Thank you, I didn't realize that!

Obviously Buckingham Palace covered for Andrew and in this instance used William & Catherine as the most popular & most interesting to the media, to do so. Certainly Queen Elizabeth II must have approved this course of action.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Oh and Andrew Lownie says that Amy Robach of ABC was working on a TV program about Virginia's accusations years before they eventually came out. Buckingham Palace threatened ABC that they would never again get access to William & Catherine's events if they went ahead with this program and ABC backed down.

The Amy Robach story is not new (it was reported in 2019) and was discussed in the following thread:

The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022

Andrew has only ever denied that he had sex with her not that he was ever in her company so I don't really see where he is going with this fake photo thing. I'm sure if the photo didn't exist he would have denied that he had ever met her.

www.theroyalforums.com

ETA: Posted the original source here:

The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2: Sep 2022 -

Maybe I am in the minority, but I do not feel Andrew is culpable in any way for Ms. Guiffre's suicide. She seems to have made a good life for herself until something went wrong with her marriage, so wrong that there was a restraining order against her and she could not even see her children...

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I haven't read in this forum nor anywhere else that there are people who excuse Andrew's behavior. Unless you mean when people like me have questions about so-called “sources.”

I fully agree. And if the comment was referring to the anonymous source quoted in the Telegraph article: Providing context or even mitigating circumstances for behavior, as the anonymous source may have been trying to do, is not the same as excusing it.

The fact that he did not want a trial but instead took money from his mother to pay Virginia G. speaks volumes. If he had been completely innocent, he would not have done so.

Edit: Moved my reply here: The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2: Sep 2022 -

 

[Leopoldine]

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.

I've never heard JRM say "salacious" so much as in his segment with Lownie.

Ed Balls is a leftie. It would be unusual for him to be defending members of the BRF in such matters. And he's not, in my view, a man of good judgement. Remember when he bounced around on TV dancing to PSY's "Gangnam Style"? It looked like he was astride a balking mule.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Thank you Tatiana Maria very much for the explanation and the links to the studies in Scottish schools. If Andrew told the source himself, it may well be true. I didn't know that there were so many incidents of sexual abuse at elite schools.

Charles Earl Spencer wrote a book last year about his experience being sexually asssaulted as a minor in boarding school ("A Very Special School")

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Telegraph royal reporter Hannah Furness wrote an article about another passage from “Entitled”.

Access Restricted

Prince Andrew lost his virginity at 11, biography claims

archived 7 Aug 2025 17:20:23 UTC

archive.ph

"[…] [The book] reads: “According to a source close to Andrew, he had his first sexual experience aged eight [...]​

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.

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.

Online comments alerted me to another (relatively) less-disturbing possibility: Since the Duke of York is alleged to have said it himself, it is conceivable that he lied or exaggerated in an attempt to grandstand.

Perhaps naively, I assumed a person (allegedly) saying “I had my first sexual experience aged eight” would be intended and received as a confession of a traumatic experience, but judging by online comments (elsewhere), most people interpret it as a boast – so perhaps the Duke of York was/is one of those people.

(I wonder how many would have reacted this same way if, say, Andrew Lownie wrote that an anonymous source said that Princess Anne said that she had her first sexual experience aged eight.)

 

[hereditarytitles]

I agree. Sexual abuse in childhood is always a traumatic experience, but Andrew could have made that clearer. Unfortunately, we don't know the exact wording and what he meant. The author should have followed up on that.
If it had been Anne, the public reaction would certainly have been very different. No one would ever think she would brag about it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

"Entitled" is published today, August 14. Author Andrew Lownie barred a friend and supporter of the Duke of York from attending the book launch because she made unflattering comments about the book, according to their mutual friend.

If true, it raises questions about Mr. Lownie's objectivity.

EDEN CONFIDENTIAL: Author bans Andrew's pal Lady V from book launch

With explosive claims about Prince Andrew - his friendship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein - Andrew Lownie's book on the Duke of York has rocked the monarchy.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[hereditarytitles]

"Lady Victoria has been an outspoken defender of Prince Andrew and his friend Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving 20 years in a US jail for enticement of minors and sex-trafficking under-age girls".

Reading that excerpt from the "DM" article I am not surprised that the author doesn't want to invite this lady.
Maybe he doesn't want to have a violent discussion at the party. And who knows, how many negative reactions on his book he has received in the last couple of weeks?

 

[tommy100]

Interesting to ban someone from a party.

 

[AC21091968]

In an another twist of event, Lady Victoria Hervey released a statement to the Daily Express (right wing tabloid) dismissing suggestions that she was not banned from the launch of Entitled: The Rise And Fall Of The House Of York, by Andrew Lownie. Instead she would refuse to go.

Prince Andrew's ex breaks silence on claims she was 'banned' from book launch

However, Lady Victoria has dismissed suggestions that she was banned from the event, in a damning statement to the Daily Express.

In a statement, Lady Victoria said: "I definitely was not planning on going anywhere near that party.
It was a joke I had with Brian Basham saying he would say I was Mrs Basham and I said I would come in a wig! Never would have gone though. The guy has a really unhealthy obsession with the Yorks. Jacob Rees-Moggs’s interview with him was brilliant tv."

Lady Victoria Hervey is the daughter of the 6th Marquess of Bristol and sister to the 7th and 8th Marquesses. She was once one of the most recognisable 'It Girls' of the 90s and was never far from the covers of magazines and tabloid headlines.

She also defended Jacob Rees-Mogg's interview on GB News, who is her step-sister, Helena's husband.
Person Page

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Andrew Lownie states that he is planning to release a second edition of “Entitled” next summer with additional content from new sources.

“'The amazing and astonishing thing that's happened since Entitled came out is that people have come forward in droves with more stories to tell about Prince Andrew,' he [Andrew Lownie] said. 'Those who felt they couldn't speak to me before have now changed their mind or have realised they've been covering things up for him out of misplaced loyalty.

[…]

'So my Andrew book is going to have to be substantially rewritten from start to finish. It will be an entirely new book, not just a few new chapters, and I'll get it done in time for the paperback release next summer. I think my book really broke the inertia surrounding Prince Andrew.'”​

Apparently, “Mr Lownie has already alluded to the fact that the passages he was forced to remove for legal reasons were enough to bring down the monarchy.” (Count me as skeptical.)


Mr. Lownie also states that his next book, which he estimates will take him four years to complete, will be about Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (and apparently reveal unflattering information about him as well).

Andrew's biographer promises more revelations - and a book on Philip

It is a devastating portrait of Prince Andrew which - even by his standards - contains sensational details about his relationships and finances.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

You are right. A People Magazine report, written at the time of the wedding, states:

"Dapper Prince William, who turned 17 on June 21 (and is getting a Volkswagen Golf car from Dad), and Prince Harry, 14, kept a watchful eye on cousins Beatrice, 10, and Eugenie, 9, who attended without their royal-outcast mum, Sarah, Duchess of York. (Fergie, like Prince Charles’s inamorata, Camilla Parker Bowles, was left off the guest list. “The duchess was sad for the girls that she wouldn’t be there,” says a friend.)

[...]

The bride’s attendants—Camilla Hadden, 8, Olivia Taylor, 5, Felix Sowerbutts, 7, and Harry Warburton, 6, all children of the couple’s friends—successfully navigated the chapel steps and Sophie’s train."

Edward & Sophie

In a day devoid of pomp if not ceremony, another Windsor ties the knot

people.com

Such an easily avoidable error about a public matter raises questions about the quality of factchecking process for "Entitled".

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.

In his interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg, Andrew Lownie described his source for that allegation as a trusted and knowledgeable member of Prince Philip’s family, according to Mail reporter Richard Eden.

Richard Eden investigated the claim himself. In summary, there is no proof of it in the public domain, but the affair rumor was circulated by Prince Philip’s own acquaintances in the mid-1960s, and Susan "Susie" Ferguson’s ex-husband is on the record writing “I always suspected that Prince Philip had an eye for Susie”, so it is not as farfetched as it may seem at first glance.

Fergie's mum was Prince Philip's lover: Inside story behind the claim

Of all the jaw-dropping claims in Andrew Lownie's book about Prince Andrew, it is one of the most provocative.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Lori138]

Tatiana I agree with you that some of the claims in this book could have been fact checked better. However, if we go just by what the article in People magazine states, it could also be wrong as I have found that magazine wanting at times itself. Not saying it is wrong here, just that it too has stated incorrect facts.

 

[Alison H]

Andrew Lownie states that he is planning to release a second edition of “Entitled” next summer with additional content from new sources.

Mr. Lownie also states that his next book, which he estimates will take him four years to complete, will be about Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (and apparently reveal unflattering information about him as well).

He's just a professional muck-raker. And he knows that the royals won't answer back. What a nasty little man.

 

[EllieCat]

Apparently, “Mr Lownie has already alluded to the fact that the passages he was forced to remove for legal reasons were enough to bring down the monarchy.” (Count me as skeptical.)


Mr. Lownie also states that his next book, which he estimates will take him four years to complete, will be about Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (and apparently reveal unflattering information about him as well).

Nobody, but nobody, deserves their life being picked over like this. The RF have already cut Andrew out of being a working Royal and he is now living a quiet life, out of the way, he's lost everything, his job, his reputation, his lifestyle; there's no need to dissect his life like this. Except for money of course. I feel mostly for the Princesses who have never done anything wrong. Now, I'm not saying Andrew is a saint, he's so far from that as the east is from the west. However I do wonder if this author has an agenda.

 

[tommy100]

Given Mr Lownie seems obsessed by Freedom of Information requests to inform his books I don’t think he really gets to know the people he is writing about very well. He says a fee times that “all the FOIs are in for my next book about Prince Philip”. If you think that gives you a decent understanding of a person- what is said about then In Government communications and paperwork- then you are a pretty poor biographer IMO.

All hot air and attention IMO.

 

[EllieCat]

Richard Eden investigated the claim himself. In summary, there is no proof of it in the public domain, but the affair rumor was circulated by Prince Philip’s own acquaintances in the mid-1960s, and Susan "Susie" Ferguson’s ex-husband is on the record writing “I always suspected that Prince Philip had an eye for Susie”, so it is not as farfetched as it may seem at first glance.

There's a world of difference between 'having an eye out' and a full-blown affair. But the author says they were 'lovers'. To me 'lovers' means having a sexual relationship, but if there's no proof of that, and there doesn't seem to be, then the author should not have used that word with all its connotations.

 

[kalnel]

Andrew Lownie states that he is planning to release a second edition of “Entitled” next summer with additional content from new sources.

“'The amazing and astonishing thing that's happened since Entitled came out is that people have come forward in droves with more stories to tell about Prince Andrew,' he [Andrew Lownie] said. 'Those who felt they couldn't speak to me before have now changed their mind or have realised they've been covering things up for him out of misplaced loyalty.​

​

[…]​

​

'So my Andrew book is going to have to be substantially rewritten from start to finish. It will be an entirely new book, not just a few new chapters, and I'll get it done in time for the paperback release next summer. I think my book really broke the inertia surrounding Prince Andrew.'”​

Apparently, “Mr Lownie has already alluded to the fact that the passages he was forced to remove for legal reasons were enough to bring down the monarchy.” (Count me as skeptical.)


Mr. Lownie also states that his next book, which he estimates will take him four years to complete, will be about Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (and apparently reveal unflattering information about him as well).

Andrew's biographer promises more revelations - and a book on Philip

It is a devastating portrait of Prince Andrew which - even by his standards - contains sensational details about his relationships and finances.

www.dailymail.co.uk

What a strange comment from Lownie. He might as well have said, "Whatever you do, don't buy it now. I'll be releasing a much better version soon!"

 

[tommy100]

And admission in part he didn’t have enough sources first time round.

 

[victor1319]

Bunte online, the German tabloid, cites from the book and sums up.
Bunte online (in German)

And they are not only calling out Prince Andrew, but - and that's new - the Duchess of York too!

She knew everything about the Princes extra-marital affairs - more than a dozen before the first wedding day. She knew with what king of gangsters and dictators he was dealing with.
She embezzeled money for an orphanage in Cairo, Egypt called "The littlest Lamb".
She introduced her husband, the Prince, to the deceased pedo pimp Epstein.
She flew several times on his infamous airplane "The Lolita Express" in the 90s.
She even took her daughters, the Princesses, onto that plane.
She stayed over night at properties of Epstein.

My take: Oh my... the plot thickens and the Andrew Story is about to become a York Story.
All this sounds so relentless true - I wonder, how the nuclear Royal Family will react.

 

[sophie25]

Bunte online, the German tabloid, cites from the book and sums up.
Bunte online (in German)

And they are not only calling out Prince Andrew, but - and that's new - the Duchess of York too!

She knew everything about the Princes extra-marital affairs - more than a dozen before the first wedding day. She knew with what king of gangsters and dictators he was dealing with.
She embezzeled money for an orphanage in Cairo, Egypt called "The littlest Lamb".
She introduced her husband, the Prince, to the deceased pedo pimp Epstein.
She flew several times on his infamous airplane "The Lolita Express" in the 90s.
She even took her daughters, the Princesses, onto that plane.
She stayed over night at properties of Epstein.

My take: Oh my... the plot thickens and the Andrew Story is about to become a York Story.
All this sounds so relentless true - I wonder, how the nuclear Royal Family will react.

I wonder if Andrew and Sarah will be walking to church on Christmas Day this year. I wouldn't be surprised if they did as Charles doesn't seem to 'get it' where these two are concerned.

 

[Curryong]

I have read before years ago that Sarah flew on Epstein’s plane to holiday on his island and took her very young daughters with her on occasions. I think it’s pretty clear that Sarah always needed money and the fact that Epstein gave her loans was a main attraction.

However, I don’t believe that she introduced Andrew to Epstein. Andrew himself stated in that BBC interview that his friendship with this individual came about through Ghislaine Maxwell whom Andrew had known since she was at University.

This scandal is likely to continue on for some time now, and more people seem to be willing to come out and impart what they know about Andrew and Sarah, with more embarrassment for the reputation of the BRF, unfortunately.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

TBF given Harry's proclivity to sue and take legal action against things they don't like, I suspect the publishers felt if legally they didn't need to seek comment from the Sussex camp it was better not to, avoiding prolonged legal issues delaying publication.

After the book's publication, Andrew Lownie's UK publisher received legal letters from the Duke of Sussex. The publisher edited the book to add that Prince Harry denies the allegations of altercations in 2013 and 2017 - but did not remove the stories from the book.

Historian won't back down at Prince Harry legal threat but makes key change

Prince Harry's team sent a legal letter to the publisher of an upcoming royal biography over a high-profile allegation.

www.newsweek.com

In contrast, Mr. Lownie and his publisher agreed to delete from the book a passage that quoted Jeffrey Epstein as saying he introduced the future Melania Trump to Donald Trump, even though there is no report of a direct legal threat against Mr. Lownie or his publisher regarding that story.

Access Restricted

Prince Andrew book edited to remove Epstein claims about Melania Trump

archived 19 Aug 2025 19:44:39 UTC

archive.ph

 

[Viv]

Come to think of it: What’s the real intention of Mr. Lownie’s gossipy book? He professes to being a monarchist, but he’s doing his best to undermine the BRF with Entitled! He cannot have it both ways! I suppose every Brit knows by now that Prince Andrew isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer and that he has behaved appallingly in many cases! It cannot get any worse for him, so what’s the point of going on about it?
He’s toast as a working royal, however he’s still a family member! IMO the King and The Court need to find a solution they all can live with, possibly including Sarah. Maybe that’s easier said than done!••••?

 

[Alison H]

I assume that his intention is to make money from other people's misery. Like a lot of other royal "biographers".