10 Questions For Prince Andrew Author, Andrew Lownie
Answers to my burning q's and the future of the monarchy
The one thing tariffs and inflation won’t hit? This blog. Things are hard right now, but if you have a few dollars to spare a month and would like to support the continuation of my work, consider upgrading to the paid tier. This blog is a time-consuming labor of love, made possible by my subscribers. Thank you. xX
Upon finishing Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York, by Andrew Lownie, I had endless follow-up questions. I connected with Lownie online, and he gave me his email address. So, as a punishment, I sent him 10 incredibly lengthy questions.
He graciously answered them all.
A majority of my questions are from the last 100 pages of the book. In it, Lownie dives into what we know about Prince Andrew’s time as Special Representative for Trade and Investment, and the lengths the government and the British Monarchy have gone to keep records sealed. Then, there’s his relationship with Epstein, which is yet again relevant because of the Epstein Files.
Andrew Lownie is a monarchist, but he feels that “rogue royals” like Prince Andrew and Ferige undermine the good work of the monarchy and shouldn’t get a free pass. In particular, “they should not be able to monetise their royal status for personal financial gain.
While Prince Andrew’s daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, have done a good job separating themselves from their father publicly, Lownie paints a very different story behind the scenes. I asked him point-blank his thoughts on the media pushing the idea of Beatrice and Eugenie having roles in Prince William’s future slimmed-down monarchy. His answer might surprise you.
1. Do you think Prince Andrew is an aberration from the norm or indicative of systemic questionable behavior from the Royal Family? Or, at the very least, a culture of cover-up? How can the Royal Family create more trust in the monarchy moving forward?
I believe Prince Andrew and his ex-wife are the worst examples of royals abusing their public position for personal financial enrichment, and they let down the other members of the family who give selfless public service. That said, I believe the late Queen, diplomats, and politicians protected Andrew, not least when he was Special Representative for Trade and Investment, and those diplomats and politicians need to re-examine their consciences and come clean on exactly what he was up to. I feel there are strong grounds for a parliamentary enquiry into his decade as Special Representative and the Royal Family needs to be more accountable, not least on finances and archives. I’d like to see all Royal wills unsealed and then no longer exempted from the Freedom of Information Act.
2. In November 2024, it was reported that Prince Andrew had "convinced Palace authorities" he had enough cash to keep the Royal Lodge. When questioned, the Palace passed it off as a matter for someone else. What do you believe is the most likely source of cash? Based on his past, aren't there fears that he could owe some powerful people favors?
Andrew’s finances are very opaque. We know he has inherited money and has a modest naval pension, but my belief is that he has squirreled away money from his time as Special Representative and running Pitch@Palace, and is still making money from contacts in China and the Middle East.
3. I noticed in the book that Beatrice and Eugenie often accompany Andrew on trips, especially to the Middle East. Are they following in their father's footsteps? The press is trying to position them as potential royal ambassadors during William's reign. Given their Middle East business dealings, is that a wise move?
Andrew has transferred his ambitions to his daughters, and there is a huge PR push for them to play a more active role in the slimmed-down monarchy, but I think this would be unwise. They accompanied him on many of his taxpayer-funded trips as Special Representative, with all the extra security costs, and, as a result, have built up a useful network of contacts which they are now exploiting. Only the other day, Beatrice was promoting a bank from the UAE, where her father was gifted a palace.
4. On the topic of the press, you write at the end that "the media have now woken up to the way they have leveraged their royal position for personal gain, and it's likely that there are many more scandals to be exposed." I haven't seen a lot of proof of that or willingness to expose Andrew by the British press for fear it could hurt the monarchy. Where are you seeing a change? What more can they do?
The problem is that most of the media is controlled by a mixture of carrot and stick. If they want access, they have to toe the line, and many of the proprietors and senior journalists have been befriended by the royals with cosy chats at Clarence House, etc. The Sun, for example, has not mentioned my book at all. Remember how ABC Television pulled transmission of their investigation into Andrew and Giuffre after they were warned it would lead to no more interviews with William and Catherine? We need brave media organisations and publishers to try and shift the dial in this censoring of our history.
5. Building off of question 4, I couldn't help but think about the recent vacations by William & Kate and Queen Camilla aboard luxury yachts owned by men with ties to Middle Eastern governments (thinking specifically of the owner of the yacht the Queen was on, who helped broker the arms deal in the 80s). Based on Andrew's activities and the willingness of the monarchy, at times, to actively interfere with the government to keep Andrew protected, shouldn't these trips and relationships be a bigger deal?
It is interesting that many media organisations did not cover these holidays or gave them minimal coverage. The Royal Family can afford to pay for their own holidays and should not place themselves in these sorts of situations. A royal register, mooted now for over twenty years, might provide some transparency, but better still, they should not place themselves in any position of obligation. How many donors to Royal pet projects, like Dumfries House, have been rewarded, I wonder?
6. Are the royals apolitical? Does the idea that they're apolitical stop serious reporting on their relationships with government officials and business dealings?
Clearly, the Royals are used as soft power – witness the charm offensive on Donald Trump with a State Visit to limit tariffs, and why it was believed Andrew could be used as a Special Representative for Trade and Investment. The whole point is they should not be political. At the moment, the convention is that there is no parliamentary scrutiny of them. I believe that has to change.
7. Do the Royals have a Spare problem?
Anne and Edward are spares and not a problem. They serve the institution as part of the team. Sadly, Andrew puts his private interests above those of this country.
8. You mentioned a theory I've had for a while: the Meghan Markle bullying report was never released because it would draw attention to other royals and their behavior towards staff, specifically Prince Andrew. Yet, I've never seen the press connect the two or focus on anything but alleged claims against The Duchess of Sussex. Is Meghan Markle another example of the Royals using another family member to cover up potentially unflattering stories? (In this case, Prince Andrew.) Are there other examples you know of where a story was traded to protect Andrew?
There are countless stories of rival courts – not least Charles and Diana - briefing against each other to put across the views of their principals. Prince Harry’s gripe that he was the sacrificial lamb to divert attention from Camilla has some validity, and certainly the Royal communications experts enjoy criticism of the Duchess of Sussex as it takes attention away from, for example, William and Catherine.
9. There was the instance in April 2011 where the duke acted as a fixer for an investment in Kazakhstan on behalf of EYDAP and a Swiss finance house. At first, there's denial from the Palace, then the emails are shown, then they claim it's a forgery, and finally they try through Harbottle & Lewis to halt publication of the article on privacy grounds. That struck me because it's the same argument that Harbottle & Lewis used when it came to stories about Prince William and Kate falling out with Rose Hanbury a few years back. Why do they use these privacy arguments and not libel?
They will use every sort of technique – denial, threat, inducement, legal action (privacy, copyright, libel, national security), reward ,etc.
10. Do you have any plans for follow-up reporting on Prince Andrew?
I will be updating the Prince Andrew book for paperback, and then plan to write a biography of Prince Philip.
-Meredith
Boy... that was enlightening. I think I got more from you than any other publish interview. We'll Done!
Excellent!