For years, biographer Andrew Lownie has been researching and writing a book about Prince Andrew. The book will be released on August 14. It’s called Entitled. Great title! It’s not only about Andrew, but about “the House of York,” or more of Sarah Ferguson’s sketchy dealings. But the biggest headlines from the book so far are about Andrew being a predator, a boor, a degenerate and an a–hole. Apparently, Andrew had a lot of sh-t to say to and about Prince Harry, which led to Harry coming to blows with his uncle in 2013. From the Mail’s exclusive:
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.’
According to the same source, the duke’s relationship with William is not much better. There have been tensions between the two men for years, partly occasioned by Andrew being rude about Kate. William refers to Andy as a ‘t****r’, perhaps not as bad as the vile names his brother Harry uses. Harry has referred to Andy as a ‘pooftah’, an ‘a***-h***’ and a ‘twit’.
William has long worked behind the scenes to evict his uncle from Royal Lodge, the home he occupies in Windsor Great Park. He thinks Andrew is abusing the property and his privilege there, the source says. ‘He also loathes Sarah, Andrew’s ex-wife, and can’t wait for the day when his father throws them both out. If Charles doesn’t, I guarantee you the first thing William does when he eventually becomes king is to get them evicted.’
I’m not sure I believe any of this. Remember in 2016, when Harry and Meghan were dating, and he took her to tea at Royal Lodge and Meghan ended up meeting QEII? Granted, I think Harry was introducing Meghan to Fergie and his York cousins. Still, would Harry bring his girlfriend to his uncle’s home if they had come to blows just three years beforehand? Doubtful. But I have no problem believing that William hates Andrew’s guts.
So, after I wrote all of that, Harry’s rep went to People Magazine to deny everything on the record. Wow!! Harry’s spokesperson told People: “I can confirm neither of those things are true. Prince Harry and Prince Andrew have never had a physical fight, nor did Prince Andrew ever make those comments about the Duchess of Sussex to Prince Harry.” Here’s my new theory: they credited Andrew with what William was actually saying to Harry. Like, ultimately, I don’t think Andrew would care enough to say any of that about Meghan to Harry. But William absolutely said some of that sh-t.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.
-
- Meghan, Duchess of Sussex sits with Prince Harry, left, and Prince Andrew, right, during the Commonwealth Service at Westminster Abbey in London, Monday, March 11, 2019. Commonwealth Day has a special significance this year, as 2019 marks the 70th anniversary of the modern Commonwealth – a global network of 53 countries and almost 2.4 billion people, a third of the world’s population, of whom 60 percent are under 30 years old.,Image: 531581537, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: NO UK USE FOR 48 HOURS- Fee Payable Upon reproduction – For queries contact Avalon sales@Avalon.red London +44 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles +1 310 822 0419 Berlin +49 30 76 212 251 Madrid +34 91 533 42 89, *** NO UK USE FOR 48 HRS ***, Model Release: no, Credit line: /Avalon
-
- WINDSOR, ENGLAND – APRIL 17: Peter Phillips, Vice-Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex during the funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh at Windsor Castle on April 17, 2021 in Windsor, England. Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark was born 10 June 1921, in Greece. He served in the British Royal Navy and fought in WWII. He married the then Princess Elizabeth on 20 November 1947 and was created Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich by King VI. He served as Prince Consort to Queen Elizabeth II until his death on April 9 2021, months short of his 100th birthday. His funeral takes place today at Windsor Castle with only 30 guests invited due to Coronavirus pandemic restrictions.,Image: 606152799, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: NO UK USE FOR 48 HOURS, *** NO UK USE FOR 48 HRS ***, Model Release: no, Credit line: Chris Jackson/Avalon
-
- LONDON, ENGLAND – SEPTEMBER 14: Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex walk behind the coffin during the procession for the Lying-in State of Queen Elizabeth II on September 14, 2022 in London, England. Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin is taken in procession on a Gun Carriage of The King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Hall where she will lay in state until the early morning of her funeral. Queen Elizabeth II died at Balmoral Castle in Scotland on September 8, 2022, and is succeeded by her eldest son, King Charles III.,Image: 722656464, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: *** NO UK USE FOR 48 HRS ***, Model Release: no, Credit line: Kate Green/Avalon
-
- Horse Guards Parade, London, UK. 14th September 2022. The procession taking Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II from Buckingham Palace to the Palace of Westminster, where she will Lie in State until her funeral on Monday, passes through Horse Guards Parade. Prince Andrew, Prince Harry, Prince Edward.,Image: 722673471, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: Supplied by AVALON – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Madrid: +34 91 533 4289, Model Release: no, Credit line: Photo by Amanda Rose/Avalon
-
- King Charles III, Prince Harry, Camilla Queen Consort, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward and Sophie Countess of Wessex The State Funeral of Her Majesty The Queen, Gun Carriage Procession, Wellington Roundabout, London, UK – 19 Sep 2022,Image: 724207123, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Credit line: Anthony Harvey/Shutterstock / Avalon
-
- Prince Harry and Prince Andrew at the Coronation of King Charles III at Westminster Abbey in London, United Kingdom, on 06 May 2023.,Image: 774218700, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: -, *** NO UK USE FOR 48 HRS ***, Model Release: no, Credit line: Eddie Mulholland for The Telegraph/Avalon
“Here’s my new theory: they credited Andrew with what William was actually saying to Harry”
Yeah, that works. I hope the Sussexes sue the publisher if they don’t remove that from the book.
Glad that they are starting to speak out against books that are just outright lies. Need more of that.
As for this:
“The source said: ‘Harry later told William he hated Andrew.’”
Willy’s the source via Jason.
They can’t sue because in order to sue you would need to prove it didn’t happen which is next to impossible for incidents that were alleged to happen so long ago. All the author has to say is he believed his source.
Difficult to find witnesses to something that didn’t happen.
You can prove it didn’t happen by making the person who allegedly got punched testify. However, that book is probably filled with lies, so no need to pay it more attention.
IDK, I can see Andrew getting really drunk and saying some stupid sh*t. He has shown a clear lack of judgement and self restraint his entire life.
That kind of book doesn’t need the attention of a lawsuit. Refuting on record is enough. I also agree that there is only one violent person in that family and that is Will.
I think they bothered to deny those lies, out of respect for his daughters, especially Eugenie.
They aren’t going to sue because of discovery. Also these types want to be sued for more attention to their books. That way they can go on TV shows and get interviewed and get more money. This type of book is not going to be purchased widely even with salacious stories like this being printed in a Daily Mail. People will just read the Daily Mail.
As far as suing they just want to know what was going on with the Sussexes, and what they can find out about what they’re doing now within legal parameters. Remember when they wanted to be able to search Meghan’s emails for mentions of Kate, Harry, racism and other random things that had nothing to do with her case? They want to get information and the Sussexes well paid lawyers know that. They’ll do what they did. Go on the record, saber rattle with official letters and that’s that. They know what they need to do
I agree with you Dee(2) about this being about these types wanting to be sued to get the attention and to also use a lawsuit to try and get information about the Sussexes and what’s happening with them now. I remember in the docuseries and maybe even in Harry’s book how the Fail was trying to not only get the names of her friends with the People interview and at one point Meghan said they were trying to get information about her children “who weren’t even born at the time” of the People article. All of this is to get reactions, preferably legal reactions so that they can get information about the Sussexes at the time and present day.
This story only burnishes the legend of Harry, a defender along the lines of Lancelot
And what better elitist to bloody on the side of Darkness and Epstein than this non perspiring yet voracious prince?
Totally agree, William/Jason outed themselves the source with that quote about what Harry supposedly said to William. Nobody ever tells an author, “And then I ran to my brother and cried about Andrew.” Nobody does this, and Harry certainly doesn’t do this. If Harry did talk to Lownie (which I doubt), he would have just said it directly: “I really hate/dislike Andrew and don’t appreciate him slandering me and my wife.”
Also read that Lownie refuted Harry’s denial, saying Harry is known for lying and his (Lownie’s) source is reliable. That source being Jason. Ugh.
He needs to put a name out there for this “reliable” source then.
Who is Lownie anyway? Another purveyor of lies? Unless he can say the source was in the room to witness it, then he should stop digging that hole.
Funny how they like to gaslight the Sussexes. Remind me of Tominey’s account of the cry and she said, my source is impeccable.
Yeah, it was Carole. But she wasn’t there. Meghan was. And they have the hide to call them liars.
Really this book should be consigned to the fiction or fan fiction section. Shame on the publisher.
It makes a lot of sense if someone close to William has sourced parts of this book. An easy way to get in hits against both the Yorks and Harry.
Apparently Lownie has already “come out swinging” and said that Harry is not known for getting the truth right and that he had a very trusted source. A la Tominey vibes. For a royalist, calling someone a very trusted source would likely be someone close to the top, like William. Or in the case of the crying story, Kate. Or people close to them like Jason and Carole. Lownie seems like a liar and a useful royalist idiot.
He’s getting the Bower treatment from Harry and Lownie knows Harry speaking out means his book has no credibility.
Sucks to be Lownie. Not so useful to Willy/Jason if he proves to be a liability. Sucks to be them 😂
Blogger: if you google the scandal mongers podcasts you find podcasts by him and his friend Phil Craig. I once heard the first on Mountbatton and Diana and they weren’t bad and critical on the RF. But a bit later they some on Harry and Meghan and they were fully behind the Meghan is a bully story. I stopped hearing the podcast. I thought I had found a fair niche in Britain, but that was wrong.
Lownie is on Twitter, posting about how he hopes that Harry sues and he’s looking forward to the discovery process.
@Blogger
Andrew Lownie, it turns out, is apparently the literary agent for “Lady” Colin Campbell, the well-known professional troll.
I was quite surprised no one here has brought this up. I know CB doesn’t like links so I’m not going to post any, but there’s a detailed post with receipts about this on a popular Reddit H&M fan sub.
Ewww, I did not know that @idlesatcranky. Lordy.
PS, The same Newsweek article points out that Harry and Meghan sued repeatedly between 2019 and 2022, then stopped. Newsweek then wonders aloud whether this letter is a return to that strategy, or not.
Whether or not they decide suing is a good idea, part of me really wants to see Jason and Willy exposed for the lying douches they are. Exposed again, after Jason forged that text from Meghan for her court case.
Newsweek wonders aloud, because they would absolutely love that as long as they weren’t suing them. They may have stopped suing, but sending letters from their lawyers they were doing last year. They literally sent one to the BBC last year. These papers and soft magazines would love to write about these books more with the veneer of credibility, or anything that would come out in court cases, or anything that would get Harry and Meghan back to the UK.
The daily dissection of everything they do isn’t getting the attention it did even two years ago. That’s why they ignored the Netflix stories. People who support them aren’t stopping, people who hate them won’t change their mind with any evidence, and those in the middle have realized how the media are.
@Me at home, I don’t remember Harry ever suing a book. They sued british newspapers. Daily Mail lawsuit date is close, so it isn’t surprising they are trying to antagonize Harry. The Sun did the same thing when their lawsuit date was getting closer to punish him. There has not been a new lie out there for them to sue the papers until this one that I can remember (speculation over their commercial contracts isn’t something to sue over). I am guessing it was because of Jason’s absence. Now he is back with all his unnamed quotes.
“I’m not sure I believe any of this.”
You have company as I do not believe one word of this either.
My god they will use any and all of the Windsors to get to Harry and Meg. No I don’t believe that the pedo said those things or that Harry bloodied his uncle. They just want to sell books or articles and the must use the Sussexes in any negative way that they can make up! This numpty didn’t need to envolve the Sussexes to make the pedo look bad . He has problems all in his own!
I don’t believe a word of this. The media is still trying to deflect from wails yacht vacation
This Tessa! 👆 Lie and deflect is their M.O.
Meghan met Eugenie before she met Harry. Who knew if Beatrice and Eugenie were at home when Harry took Meghan over to his uncle’s house, if they were, why was Fergie teaching her to curtsy, when the Queen pop up unexpectedly.
I’ve heard that but that doesn’t appear to be true.. Harry met Meghan, then eugenie came to a party with them both. Meghan had one friend who knew Harry which was the weird insta thing. No one in the know said Eugene knew Meghan.. Harry never did in his book
Not in Spare but with Oprah. Meghan said she knew Eugenie. They were in the same circles.
“Eugenie and I had known each other before I had known Harry, so that was comfortable,” Meghan said. “We’re friends with them as a couple.”
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-knew-princess-eugenie-before-dating-prince-harry/
It seems like she had met Eugenie prior and maybe they were friendly acquaintances and then became friends when she dated Harry.
I don’t think Harry’s reps would have bothered saying anything if they didn’t think it crossed the line into libel. How sloppy from the publisher.
The only part of this that sounds like it might have come from Andrew rather than William is the part about Meghan being “too old” (though William would also say that. We know he had a thing for her, and he’s enough of an inept dipshit that he’d like, try to neg her by proxy). I can ABSOLUTELY see Andrew trying to recruit either or both of his nephews into his vile little circle. Hell, I can imagine Epstein explicitly asking him to do so.
So could it also be that William was the one to punch Andrew in 2013? Harry’s on record denying it. So who punched Andrew? No one? maybe. William? Also maybe.
Willy can’t punch. He’s so feeble. Maybe he tried and he missed. All the Windsor men are feeble except for Harry.
The only man I can think of who could punch would be Tindall.
This was my thought as well. They love to project.
I don’t picture Andrew caring about Harry or his marriage. I would see Andrew admiring someone who was an opportunist and he certainly hasn’t got any credibility to weigh in on marriage. Begs the question if someone else punched Andrew over remarks. There are a couple of royals who have been accused of getting physical before.
There are not many people who can get away with punching Andrew. If it did really happen, the media would only protect Charles or Will. If it was Harry, the story would come out ages ago. They never protected Harry, his messes were always out there.
Elizabeth’s warm relationship with Harry would not have existed if Harry had hit Andrew, Elizabeth’s favorite son. It didn’t happen.
@Mairzy Doats, that is correct. If Harry hurt Andrew, QE2 would punish him. She always protected her little Andy.
“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”
Replace Meghan with Lazy and the opportunist, old and biggest mistake ever fits. But I think this is Willy’s imagination running wild. Andrew needs to suck up to Willy as future king. Harry doesn’t control the purse strings, Willy does.
I’m glad you put the except here. The tabloid headlines were saying that the supposed physical fight was about Meghan in 2013 which doesn’t fit their timeline. I was confused.
But yeah, I didn’t believe it anyway.
Yeah, I really appreciate Kaiser’s summaries. No way am I going to subscribe to the MoL to read their vile articles.
LOL They were fighting about her, IN ADVANCE.
Ha! Totally!
I think they meant they just got into the physical altercation in 2013, they didn’t say the reason for it. And that later down the road (years later) was when Andrew purportedly made those comments about Meghan.
Do these people not realize how bad articles like this make them look? By their own words they show themselves to be mean and spiteful towards their own family. It’s just a den of vipers. They are so petty and not at all dignified.
Throwing Harry and Andrew under the bus… Is a divorce imminent? Are Charles and Camilla seperated? Isn’t he alone in Scotland? With Sarah Chatto family…
I don’t know why the belief that William doesn’t like Andrew still persists. William likes Andrew, he made a point to be photographed with Andrew immediately after Andrew paid of Virginia.
William attanded Easter church service with Andrew after elizabeth died. So no, I don’t expect William to evict Andrew, especially if he wants the York sisters to help him, when he is king.
And he flew with Andrew when the Queen was dying but refused Harry. He is completely fine with Andrew. Harry is the one he has issues with not Andrew.
I dunno. The wording around “the first thing King Bulliam will do is kick the Yorks out of Royal Lodge” is practically ventriloquizing Jason/Bulliam on the topic of stripping HRHs from Archie and Lily. Both the spite and the wording match up. Lownie’s single source goes on to say that there’s been tension between William and Andrew “for years” in part because Andrew said some rude things about Kate.
So yes, I’m ready to believe William had a punch up with Andrew over Kate in 2013 over Andrew saying something about Kate, and that Jason is trying to pin it on Harry. William having physical fights with both brothers isn’t a good look, and maybe he tolerates Andrew for pr. Are Beatrice or Eugenie close to William and Kate?
From reports not at all, if you want to believe them. It was said back when Kate was the girlfriend that she was very mean and exclusionary to Beatrice and Eugenie, going as far as either to not tell Beatrice that a party was a costume party or to make her think it was, I’m not sure, but I know that it ended with Beatrice being embarrassed and in tears.
It doesn’t really seem like it’s changed either, while they appear to be polite and cordial to William in public, I can’t really recall them interacting with her much. The only time that I can recall them recently interacting, it didn’t look good. That was at the wedding for the Jordanian crown prince, where Kate was by herself staring off into space and Beatrice was literally standing directly behind her not saying anything on video. Weird behavior if you are at a wedding with your cousin’s wife of 15 years and girlfriend of over 20.
Kate made Beatrice cry? Did anyone alert the Tatler?
IIRC, Beatrice and Eugenie wore those funky hats at William’s wedding specifically to mock W&K
So Harry and Andrew supposedly got into a fist fight so bad 12 years ago that it drew blood and this is the first we’re hearing about it? And both of Andrew’s kids and Andrew were fine with him in public after that for years?
I always laugh at their simultaneous we welcomed Meghan with open arms from the very start, and we never trusted her and wouldn’t let her get close because we knew she was bad news stories.
I agree that this sounds like more William sourcing. Because the weekly I hate my brother so much and knew his wife was bad news stories to Tom Sykes aren’t hitting. So now he has to recruit more people that apparently hated Meghan, including his dead grandmother and his shady uncle.
I don’t even understand what these people want anymore from these books and articles. Who is interested in this? Royalists aren’t learning anything new, casual observes don’t care, fans of the Sussexes aren’t going to buy. So, who is the audience here?
Audience is Willy and his minions.
“Yes, your royal highness, your brother and his American wife are hated. See? All these articles show how much they are despised. You are loved and adored by the masses your highness!”
🎯
I’d like to know the nationality of the diplomat trading women with Andrew in state vehicles?
Sykes even has a piece on his new Substack saying “yes, the comments to the Telegraph (very conservative and older readership) all hate the Sussexes. I’d love to comment about how nothing happens in a vacuum, and it’s ironic to report as if this were a novel and surprising phenomenon when you, yourself, and the media were responsible for fueling that hate with lies and innuendo. But I don’t want to subscribe and pay him money to spread more hate.
The Telegraph is a publication that has gone completely off the rails since Brexit. It is now not much better than a tabloid and caters to posh racists who hate immigrants and transgender people. Who cares what their readers say about Harry and Meghan? Also who is reading Tom Sykes’s Substack?
Sykes’ Substack seems new and his Daily Beast Royalist column drives you to it with links. I have no plans to subscribe, I’ll keep reading the Daily Beast, thank you, although at some point he may limit what he posts to the Beast.
Harry never got any cover for any indiscretions over the years so there is just no way a story of him punching Andrew would not be revealed. Especially if it happened a decade ago.
Projection is usually the case for them. Remember when the Verbier story came out they assumed it was Harry at the ski resort and not William cheating on his wife. But the European paps had photos of William and video that was undeniable.
This seems like a similar situation especially if the incident actually happened in 2013.
I agree. There’s only one person that’s constantly being described as incandescent with rage, has laughed at delivery people being assaulted, and has been mentioned on the record and implied to be physically abusive.
For whatever reason they want people to think Harry is the one off the rails and attacking people. Whether it’s to pass on someone else’s misdeeds as his, or to lighten the blow when someone else’s shady business inevitably comes to light, who knows.
But like you said, all I know is if Harry was going around bloodying noses over a decade ago I just cannot imagine him having a good relationship with Beatrice, Eugenie, and the Queen still.
The US press will only pay attention seriously to this book until the Jeffrey Epstein, Ghilaine Maxwell and Virginia Guiffre ties to Andrew are out there. Those three people are in the news again thanks to the Trump administration. Maxwell has been moved to a minimum security prison (which is not done when you’re convicted of sex trafficking in the US) and her attorney is dealing with the deputy Attorney General (no 2 in DOJ right under AG Pam Bondi), another thing that is not procedure. Andrew is probably a name in the Epstein files and there is political pressure to releaase them unredacted. Americans will not care about an alleged fight between Harry and Andrew.
Andrew’s likely all over the Epstein files (it wouldn’t surprise me if Epstein was trying to shake him down for money, which he was rumoured to be doing with other important men in his circle of perverts). This article is nothing but swiss cheese it has so many holes in it.
Welp. On the one hand, I’m thrilled someone is exposing terrible new dirt on Andrew, and the thought that Trump is getting dragged into this book sets me tingling.
On the other hand, using Jason Knauf or William as a source for anything on Harry is terrible and knowingly biased journalism.
Even if it’s not true, I wish Harry hadn’t denied the fight part. The image of Harry beating the crap out of that creepy tub of lard is so wonderful to have in my brain.
@Brassy Rebel
I’m with you!
In my imaginary headcanon, this denial is specific, that there was no “physical fight” between Harry & Andrew — because Harry, a trained soldier just back from a war zone at the time, would not use his fists on a weak older man, and the spoiled teddy-obsessed abuser wouldn’t have the guts to fight back anyway.
Instead, again in my wild imagination, I see Harry slapping the nasty smirk right off Paedrew’s ugly face. Uncle Pedo staggering off crying, to collapse on the nearest couch and whine to Mummy.
I doubt Harry would do such a thing. But a girl can dream.
Yeah it was probably William not Harry. The story is very vague but like every other author this guy has to use Harry and Meghan to promote his book. It doesn’t seem like Harry and Meghan had much interaction with Andrew and Harry says in his book that Meghan thought that Andrew was the Queen’s assistant when she first met him.
Of all the Windsor of that generation, I believe Fergie, with all her faults, is the warmest and probably the one who was nicest to Harry. Andrew is a terrible person, but somehow with his divorce, he have kept his family together. I agree with people who believe that Willie is the one who jumped his uncle and insulted Meghan.
Fergie lost much of her money. She has a place to stay at royal lodge. I don’t think anything romantic is going on with Andrew. Fergie still was pals with Epstein and ghislaine and she also sold access to Andrew. Fergie was nice to harry and Meghan but still plays up to senior royals
Yes, and Meghan and Harry inviting her to their wedding (which shocked me as she’d been so publicly persona non grata at official events) and her obvious joy at being there with and for them, belies this entire story.
“I guarantee you the first thing William does when he eventually becomes king is to get them evicted.”
Is that before or after he takes away Harry”s titles? Or before any of his other stated mean first things?
Why do stories about William hating his family and longing to mistreat them get so much play? It’s hardly a good look for him.
Agreed @Cali Will is already a bully but when he’s King he’ll be far too busy causing as much pain as possible to his nearest and undearest to bother with even the pretence of work. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!
They have said this same thing with Charles evicting Andrew and nothing happened. The RF are fine with Andrew, nothing will happen to him when Will is king.
The stories about William hating his family and longing to mistreat them is the only thing true about him. His whole character seems to be built on seeking revenge and ruination on those who have revealed his true nature and bested him.
Lownie’s a scam artist. He promotes himself as fearlessly pursuing A whilst never having investigated KFC’s shady financial schemes. I heard him on a podcast a couple of years ago lauding the “work” done by CaC and WanK – nauseatingly sycophantic! Why would any reputable historian investigate A’s financial shenanigans and not that of KFC’s? I sensed Lownie was trying to craft a narrative that painted one brother in an entirely negative light (given it’s mostly negative with A) while elevating the other brother to sainthood. I would have expected more objectivity from an historian. Clearly objectivity and the facts are not what Lownie relies on when writing his books. What else has Lownie lied about (and not just in this upcoming book) if he can lie so brazenly about events that never happened? Any credibility he had has been seriously damaged and I can’t help but feel that that is entirely appropriate.
The spokesperson’s denials are very specific – Harry did not punch Andrew in 2013 and Andrew did not make those specifically quoted comments about Meghan to Harry’s face – that doesn’t mean he wasn’t disparaging Meghan behind H&M’s backs. Andrew is an asshat and proven sleazebag – I have no doubt he’s been talking behind family members’ backs, calling people names, undermining people to get his way and generally being a blot on the escutcheon. Apart from his mother, ex-wife and daughters, I think everybody in the family hates Andrew to some degree other and wishes they could punch him in the face.
The spokesperson’s denials are this specific because the lie is very specific. Otherwise, they wouldn’t even care to comment about how once Andrew talked some sh*t about Meghan. Harry wouldn’t refute a general story like that.
But there are other parts in the story that are also specific and that Harry doesn’t refute. Harry doesn’t refute that he told William he hates Andrew, or that he called Andrew all those “vile” names. Harry could have easily added “I never told William I hated Andrew, or I never used those words to describe Andrew,” but he didn’t. I don’t blame him really – I hate Andrew and call him names and he’s not even related to me.
@Eurydice, I mean you are still describing sh*t talking. Why even refute that kind of thing? I am assuming since the story is about Harry hitting someone physically because that person said bad things about his wife, his legal team thought of this as something worthy of legal repercussions. They wrote hundred stories about QE2 saying bad things about Meghan, Harry talking back to QE2, his legal team always ignored that kind of stories.
@sevenblue – No, I am not. Look, everything about this piece supposedly comes from the same “source” – the article is clear about this. The source has said:
1. Harry got into a fight with Andrew.
2. Andrew talked specifically worded trash about Meghan to Harry’s face.
3. After Andrew trash-talked Meghan to his face, Harry told William he hates Andrew.
4. Harry is quoted as calling Andrew a ‘pooftah’, an ‘a***-h***’ and a ‘twit’
These are all specific claims from one source, not general “sh*t talking.” Yet, Harry chose to refute #1 and #2, but not #3 or #4. I just think the choice is interesting.
Harry can’t say what Andrew has or hasn’t said behind his back, no more than you or I can because he and we aren’t with Andrew all of the time to know what he has or hasn’t said. So he refuted the story because the implication was that Harry’s anger with Andrew and his hatred of him came from what he said about Meghan. As far as Harry knows he hadn’t said anything disparaging about her so there is no reason to specifically dispute a conversation (with William) that wouldn’t have happened about his hatred of Andrew because as he said, he doesn’t know of Andrew saying anything disparaging about Meghan. So in his refuting of the story of Andrew saying anything about Meghan he is also refuting the conversation that is claimed happened because of it.
What a week to have an Andrew memoir out, considering the comments from the American president about their mutual buddy, the deceased convicted sex offender and human trafficker. So much in common. Some of the stories I have read mention Prince Andrew specifically.
You’d think that would be the thread here to get people to read this thing, but no, it’s about whether Harry called his disgraced uncle some mean names after he was rude about Meghan. I’m sure both William and Harry privately think that Andrew is an awful creep and a waste of space, but only William has chosen to appear with him in photos driving to church. Just saying.
I feel like I’m saying the same thing across very different posts: This seems like a distraction — from something that most people would find deplorable. So maybe Andrew and even William want to give us something to look at as an alternative to finding out what’s really in the Epstein files. We know that Andrew is in the mix, but maybe Future King William is in there too.
Weird story. But I’ll definitely be reading the book. The excerpt in the Fail shows what a truly revolting man A is, and as horrendous as it is I want to read about it.
Why would you want to give credit and your money to someone who is willing to print lies about someone even though they refute all of what was said about them? And what more is needed to know about Andrew and how revolting he is than what is already known? I would much rather any of the money I would spend on a book about Andrew be spent to a worthy cause supporting women of domestic or sexual violence.
If the writer writes such specific lies about H&M, how are you gonna trust his stories about Andrew? I am sure there are more reliable writers who investigated Andrew’s crimes and didn’t see the need to lie about other people to sell book.
Besides Harry refuting these claims through his spokesperson and possibly through his lawyers, there are other things that refute this asinine and erroneous claim. We know for a fact that Harry’s relationship with Andrew’s daughters, especially with Eugenie has always been close even after He and Meghan left the UK. We know that his relationship with Andrew’s ex-wife who he has continued to live with at Royal Lodge has also remained very close. So close with Eugenie that she was the very first family members he and Meghan, who at the time was his secret girlfriend, invited to his cottage to cook dinner for. She was also one of the family members he took to Royal Lodge, which is where Andrew actually lives, to have lunch with Fergie. It was all three of them (Eugenie, Fergie and Andrew), along with some random person who’s name he didn’t know, who were there for the first time Harry ever introduced Meghan to the Queen. It was Harry and Meghan who invited Fergie to their wedding and even Fergie admitted in interviews how it was something unexpected because she hadn’t been formally welcomed to royal family events that Prince Philip was at since her divorce from Andrew because of the toe sucking scandal. Even the UK announcers kept talking about how her being invited to the Sussexes wedding was a sign that things may have improved with Philip and it was a good sign for Eugenie’s wedding a few months later. Even William didn’t invite Fergie to his wedding. There are no signs whatsoever of their being any tensions between Harry and Andrew and besides someone having an issue with someone as disgusting as Andrew isn’t exactly a bad thing. So this lie doesn’t make sense to me unless the goal was to lighten the burden of what is said about William in this book, which sounds worse to me, especially the part about him not liking Fergie. I don’t believe any of this, especially the part about Harry because we’ve seen his interactions with all of his family, even during that time and he has always been the life of that family. I think that if any of it is true it’s the part about William and this Lowlife person needed to soften it with the lie about Harry. I also think his source was William (through William or Jason) which is why the lie about Harry is in the book. Either William did it and is projecting his own feelings and actions onto Harry or it’s there to make what is said about him seem light in comparison to the lie about Harry.
All good points. Another point would be that Elizabeth and Harry’s relationship were warm and genuine, certainly not what you would expect if Harry had actually struck Andrew, who was Elizabeth’s favorite son apparently.
“Either William did it and is projecting his own feelings and actions onto Harry or it’s there to make what is said about him seem light in comparison to the lie about Harry.” Agree and I’d also argue it’s supposed to make Harry seem like he’s also a physically abusive person. We famously know that William physically attacked Harry. And now, here’s someone claiming, see, Harry is physically abusive too. So Harry is shutting that down. And let’s be real. Ain’t nearly as many people reading this Lownies book or paying as much attention as they did to Spare. But this still seems like a very concerted effort to make it seem like William isn’t the only basher of the bunch. Again, that’s why Harry is sending lawyer’s letters. And for all we know, it truly is projection and William physically confronted Andrew. He’s the one that has form and gets protected by the press. I can believe neither brother did and it’s just a lie. But I can also believe it’s a lie bc William actually did it. Either way, it’s about getting articles out there saying that Harry physically hit someone and taking the heat off the fact that William once physically attacked his brother.
@Jais
Excellent point!
I have a hard time seeing anyone getting concerned about an uncle’s opinion about your intended spouse, nor do I see an uncle being concerned about a nephew’s opinion of his spouse. These people are not normal.
I commented this in a reply above, but I’m putting it here too:
Andrew Lownie, the author of this book, it turns out, is apparently the literary agent for “Lady” Colin Campbell, the well-known professional troll.
He thinks she’s just marvelous, per his listing of her “accomplishments” etc.
I was quite surprised no one here has brought this up. I know CB doesn’t like links so I’m not going to post any, but there’s a detailed post with receipts about this on a popular Reddit H&M fan sub.
That tells me all I need to know about him. Hard pass.
Help me out, Brits! Is ‘t****r’ supposed to be ‘tosser’? If so, how is that so bad it can’t be spelled out in print?
@BeanieBean
I too assume the redacted word is “tosser.” I was curious & looked it up: the main meaning given is “person who is annoying, irritating, etc.”
But a secondary meaning is that the person indulges in self-gratification.
So maybe it was thereby deemed too vulgar to attribute in full to the precious Heir, Willy The Wanker?
Ah, didn’t know about that secondary meaning.
@BeanieBean – my thoughts exactly!!!! GMAFB
I’m willing to bet Fergie is the kindest, most forgiving, most genuine person amongst the extended family, with the exception of Harry. She comes across in Spare as an ally, a good-hearted, good-natured good sport, trying to help Meghan navigate a social scene that was unfamiliar to her. If everyone had been so resourceful and kind, this would have all played out very differently. FWIW I think the most persuasive story about the toe-sucking incident, is that Diana shopped Fergie to the tabloids in order to deflect from her own shenanigans. Which …would make sense. People tend to canonise Diana, because Charles was such a sh*t husband, really, but she did pass on some of her less admirable qualities to William. She could be manipulative, ruthless, and mercenary. I think one reason William reacted with such vivid repulsion to Kate after the Oprah interview, is that he’d been placed in that position before, of coming to the aid of a woman keening for a white knight, who turned out to be angling for better media coverage, by setting herself up as the good girl, and demonising another woman in the process, whilst playing the victim. Diana did throw Fergie under the bus when she needed good headlines. Or just less scathing ones.
Proof of any of this? How would Di know when someone would be sucking Fergie’s toes? Sounds more as if Andrew himself (probable open marriage) or a servant in the house.
Diana should not be scapegoat ed. Fergie and only fergie caused those pictures. If she did not vacation with her financial advisers and bring her daughters this would not have happened. Fergie threw herself under the bus. William gets his bad behavior from dear old dad and he trashed his deceased mother calling her paranoid. I don’t get blaming diana,for fergies,own stupidity.
Diana got good press coverage. Diana,never demonized fergie. Diana was not pining for a white knight. Fergie messed up all on her own. Diana would be horrified at how William turned out
I posted this on the previous blog regarding this ‘ unauthorised biography’:
“People are giving too much weight to these so-called royal biographies. They are – nine out of ten times – not based on hard new fact/revaluations, qualified study, academic research, or honest and impartial scrutiny. They are commissioned for propaganda, or as a take down exercise.
“he endless stream of these books (about 10 a year in the UK, many times over about the same people) – often commissioned by the tabloids and the royals themselves (of the record, of course) and/or “the friendly/dodgy publishers” linked to the gossip industry, who keep this royal-biography market alive – are just to prolong the writers’ “royal-expert” lives, and to secure their income with gigs in providing baseless and ridiculous commentary regarding anything royal, in the rags, gossip mags/blogs, TV/morning shows, documentaries, podcasts, etc., in which they hardly provide (new) information or hard facts, but just bias, gossip, and speculative fanfic of what/how they themselves thing the royals feel, think, should be doing, etc. These commentaries again create headlines and articles that are “debated” weeks-long, by their peers in the different media/press in the gossip/royal industry. And the cycle continues.
“That’s royal commentary/expertise for you, guys. And a fun fact:
The vast majority of these books hardly make any substantial money. The author gets a paycheck (up font) to write the book, and that is the main income stream for it. If it sells, then fine, but they know that the audience for these books are a dying kind. The ‘honour’ of being someone in the know of royal ins-and-outs (THEY ARE NOT: it’s all about painting a positive spoon-fed image of their favourite/aka paying royal(s) of subject, to help create or maintain a narrative and to gossip about and take other royals down). And … to be able to do appearance, column and commentary gigs. That’s mostly what these so-called ”royal biographers” are banking on. Fill in any names as proof.”
End of previous post.
By the way, this guy is going so hard after Andy (and by proxy H&M), because he probably was assured before publication, that no one in the royal family will come for him, since Andy is indefensible at this point – let alone Andy himself. No one, even his friends, would want to keep defending the already lame duck publicly. I’m afraid that Andy and Sarah will have to sit this ”storm” out, once again.
Interesting. So basically, self-generating an endless income stream, true expertise & qualifications not required.
William NEVER denied the fight, not even in backdoor briefings. On the contrary, the briefings were that Harry was disloyal for writing about it.
I could have sworn that there were rumours going around about this fight before the book was published. I think Lacey edited out of his Battle of the Brothers book. I there were rotas who mentioned that they had heard about the fight