How much did the Queen know about Andrew? | Andrew Lownie | The New Statesman – Hw

Andrew Renaissance man, hello, welcome. So, nice to see you. >> to be with you. Great to have you here. Um last year you wrote uh a blockbuster book called Entitled. It’s a joint biography of the Duke and Duchess of York. Former Duke and Duchess of York. Yes, I think we should say that. Former Duke and Duchess of York.

It was an immediate best-seller. Um it was described not as a book but a but as a case for revolution. And before the end of last year, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was de-princed um and even more disgracefully had been previously. Now, the book is being re-released this month. Am I right in thinking? >> Yes, comes out on 21st of May.

>> On the 21st of May and you’ve got some new material. So, I think I want to start by saying you know, you wrote this book. It’s being called revolutionary. Were you conscious of writing a revolutionary book? No, I’ve been called all sorts of things, a dangerous radical, a Marxist, um a Republican.

I’m a former Conservative parliamentary candidate. So, um it shows how much things have changed. But, I did I’ve always had this strong feeling that um the monarchy there needs to be more transparency about the monarchy and also the sense that the the the the historical record has been curated and we don’t really get the our true history.

And that’s because records aren’t released or people are forced to sign NDAs or whatever. So, it’s an attempt to try and look at that relationship, often symbiotic relationship between the press and the monarchy, uh to look at how um they they kind of shape the narrative and what and and the role it seems to be of the historian and the biographer is to kind of tell the truth about the past.

So, that’s what this was all really about. But, it it turned out to be a bigger book than I realized. People said when I started, “Well, who’s interested in Andrew?” And I thought, “Well, we’ll we’ll discover he’s he’s you know, he’s abused his position as a monarch as a uh member of the royal family, but that’s it.” But, actually I found that the corruption kind of went much further.

The fact that he’s protected by his mother, that I think the present king has protected him, uh and that other members of the royal family have actually also tried to monetize their position. Yes. Uh and much of this covered up by the mainstream press because of their control of the the royal rota. And it’s and it’s the I think another thing that’s worth saying is it’s the alleged misuse of public funds in the entire Andrew saga, which uh is also really quite shocking and comes through in the book. I think I sent you a message. I

reviewed the book and I sent you a message saying you had changed my mind, you know, it was a book that actually changes people’s minds. You’re sure I I mean great pledge. It really really really does because it it is shocking. Now, the process of bringing it to publication, you’ve written many books, many biographies, you’ve been a literary agent, you’ve been a publisher.

But the process of bringing Entitled into book form was quite vexed, wasn’t it? Yes, it wasn’t too bad here. I mean, Collins bought the book on a finished script in February uh and it was pretty smooth. The difference between the book I delivered and the book that they published was about 1%. So, that’s and that was mainly legal changes.

So, there were very few um cuts, a little bit of tightening up. Uh and they’ve been terrific. But in the States, a very different picture. Simon Schuster bought the book there exactly the same time on a finished script. Uh and but yet a few weeks before the publication, they canceled it without giving really any reason. Uh they said it was unreadable.

Uh and >> Not true. Can I just say that’s not true? So, but also they could easily have taken, you know, the the the the the Collins version and published that. It would have been fine. So, um that that really forced me to to self-publish the book myself, which really meant the book wasn’t in bookshops.

Um when the the book came out here, I mean, there was some pushback. I mean, I was talking to some journalists funny enough yesterday and they I hadn’t realized this, but they’d been briefed and I didn’t work out who had briefed them that they were they were they were told there was nothing new in the book, that it wasn’t worth reviewing.

Um the Telegraph gave it a two-star review on the day it came out when they couldn’t have had time to read it. Mhm. Um so, there was quite a lot of pushback. A lot of interviews I did never ran. A number of interviews that um I I was going to do were canceled. Uh invitations to literary festivals were rescinded.

Uh so there was quite and a lot of places, you know, for example, the Royal Geographical Society were host for something and said as as as with the royal in the title they couldn’t um they they they couldn’t actually now host me. So there’s still quite a lot of deference to the crown. Yeah. Uh and even though the book is is is sourced, I think it’s it’s quite balanced.

I actually um tried to get the the the couple to cooperate with me to give them a chance to to to put their side of the story. >> yeah. Um uh it it it there was clearly a lot of pushback. Uh a lot of briefing against me. I’m a sle- a salacious gossip monger. Um not a serious historian. So yeah, it it’s interesting the reaction I got.

And I had that slightly >> though on a personal level, isn’t it? To to hear these things about you when you are just trying to tell the truth about two public figures, you know, who have been funded by the British taxpayer for quite a long time in some in some respects. I mean, you’re not um a Republican. You’re not a Marxist. You’re not trying to bring down the monarchy.

It’s still an extraordinary It’s extraordinary that you were briefed against in this way and these things were pulled, I I think. Yeah, well, I mean, I describe myself as a loyal friend, which is what John Grigg uh described himself in the 1950s when he raised various concerns about the queen. And his motivation, which is my motivation, is that we want the monarchy to survive.

We kind of feel that in order to survive it needs to reform. >> [clears throat] >> And I think the the intelligent thing for the royal family now would have been perhaps have me to lunch, say, you know, we understand what, you know, you have some concerns about, for example, the fact that we don’t pay capital gains tax or inheritance tax or declare how much income tax we pay and we have first uh King’s consent to change legislation before it reaches the statute book.

All these things which I think sensible people are concerned about. And let’s see how we can address it. But, there’s been complete silence from the palace. I mean, very easy for them to kind of diverted this this scandal and to dealt with it much earlier. I mean, it was only when basically the king was being heckled that they actually stepped in and properly deprived Andrew of his title.

And it was only because of public pressure that he’s been finally been pushed out of Royal Lodge. So, it’s always too little, too late. This this idea that somehow they sit it out the problem will go away. Somebody sort of involved in in the world of royalty said to me that they adopt the position of the late Queen Elizabeth II, never complain, never explain.

And that might have worked for her, but it doesn’t necessarily work for the present king and the Prince of Wales. I I think that’s absolutely right. I think, you know, with social media now, I think with a slightly less differential press, because we’ve got Substack, we’ve got the podcast.

This is where the the interesting stuff stuff’s being said. Mainstream press, you know, their coverage of the royals is is is is very supine. And but we get some very interesting stuff. Even the foreign press are really interested on all this, because they’re outside this this this this protectionist system that they have. But, you’re absolutely right.

You know, the the things have moved on. People are less prepared to accept this, particularly younger people. And I think the polls showing, you know, the support for the monarchy and for those under 30 is is should be very worrying for them, because you know, people are feeling they’re irrelevant. Um I mean, there isn’t a great desire to get rid of the the the the monarchy, but I think there is a sense that they are abusing their position, and it is all about the money.

You’re absolutely right. You know, the feeling taxpayers, particularly in a time of economic >> [gasps] >> downturn, are subsidizing these people who are taking advantage of them, who are getting special deals on their accommodation, who are actually not really uh their weight. you know, we they talk about um Prince William being being being not very assiduous, shall we say, in his royal duties.

No, he’s often sort of outperformed by Princess uh Anne, isn’t he? Yeah, or even the poor Duke of Gloucester, you know, he does does more does more. Cutting ribbons. Now, um another pushback that that you get if you speak about these problems in public, these problems with the monarchy, is people will sort of airily say, “Oh, it’s not as bad as Diana.

Oh, it’s not as bad as the abdication crisis.” Well, ob- obviously I have my view, but where where would you put this crisis? Around Andrew, around finances, around sex, around national security? Where would you put it? I think it’s far far bigger than any of those crises. I mean, the abdication, which I’ve written about, was a basically it lasted for 2 weeks.

He went quietly into the sunset, and he was a slight irritant, but that was it. There was a very easy transition. We’re here talking about a member of a senior member of the royal family, the son of a monarch, or brother of the monarch, who has now been arrested, is may well be charged with corruption, treason, sex trafficking, who but it’s not just about, you know, him and the bad apple of his wife, who’s been allowed to do for 40 years what Meghan Markle Markle has kind of been prevented from doing, you know, just as

she started out. It’s about how Andrew was protected, and indeed I would say abetted by the Queen. The fact is that every time some new terrible disclosure came out, she made him a vice admiral It’s extraordinary. If you look at it as a timeline, and you just see when the Queen gives him a present, and what the revelation is about Andrew’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

After Epstein had been convicted, after we knew a lot about Epstein, you do wonder what on earth she was thinking. >> Yeah. Well, I think she kind of it was bluff. It was you know, it raised the question in people’s minds, well, maybe he’s he’s not as guilty as we think. Because, you know, she wouldn’t put her reputation on the line for it, but she was.

And this is I think the great tragedy that you know, we thought that she put the monarchy first and her family second and that wasn’t the case. But the fact is these stories have been running for 15 years. I mean, Fergie caught selling access to to to him and yet nothing happened then. Nothing happened in 2022 when 1.3 million pounds was paid to the Yorks they couldn’t account for.

Even when my book came out though people jumped up and down, nothing happened. That should have been a wake-up call. It shouldn’t have required the the Epstein releases to to force them to do something. Um, but this but again, this is so contrary to what to what we’re told.

We’re told they’re actually always on the front foot or never put a I think about about the late Queen it’s all there’s got the cliche is she never put a foot wrong. You know, I’ve I’ve read that in a hundred royal biographies, not particularly good ones, but I’ve read it. It doesn’t seem that that was actually the case.

And I think what’s very unusual about what’s happened with the publication of In Titled and what’s then happened to Prince Andrew >> >> is that it’s running parallel. I mean, we’re sitting here today as another government looks like it’s going to tumble over. It doesn’t seem to matter whether Labour governments or Tory governments are tumbling over.

We’ve got a big political crisis, multi-year political crisis. We also have a crisis of the monarchy, which has now been running for at least since Newsnight interview, maybe with Andrew it goes back to 2010. Yeah. What is um, is this usual to have a political and a a crisis of the crown at the same time? No.

No, but I think it you know, there is a fundamental sort of questioning of all our institutions. The fact that that people have lost trust in in the elites, the sense that they operate entirely in their own self-interest. Uh, and um, you know, that this is a much more corrupt country than we realized. That we’ve seen the politicization of the civil service, of the Foreign Office, even of the armed forces, the intelligence services, the judiciary I would say.

None of these things that were, you know, the sort of great Victorian ideals of of dispassionate sort of independent um uh kind of government have gone. And and, you know, to a certain extent uh I I think there’s there’s been a sense of some of the the the big beasts of of of politics are not there any longer. The sort of people who went into politics often after distinguish, you know, careers elsewhere have gone.

And I I saw this even um 30 years ago when I was was a parliamentary candidate that, you know, increasingly uh the the constituency associations were choosing people who uh for whatever reason fitted, for example, their political views, which were of course were always with the the activists to the right and and and to the Labour Party to the left of of the general population.

Uh and so you began to get the extremists. And I mean, I think one of the you know, the sad things is we’ve kind of lost the center in British politics that we the old school social democrats, the liberals haven’t made a breakthrough. The old one nation Tories, the pro-European Tories have kind of disappeared. Mhm. Uh and haven’t really got a home.

So, um yeah, it’s it’s it’s a very destabilizing time. And of course, I think foreign powers have taken advantage of this. And part of it, I think, goes back to Brexit, you know, the sense then. Um you know, I think you know, the and you know, Trump has benefited from the breakdown and you know, he now has changed the whole international rule system.

I mean, it’s back to the nation state in the 19th century. Trump does appear entitled, doesn’t he? I think him and Andrew play golf at one point, is that right? >> They do, absolutely. They’re great friends. He goes to Mar-a-Lago. Um uh Andrew’s deputed to show him around uh Britain when he comes here. Uh I mean, they they know they have very similar interests, women, golf, and making money. Yeah.

Yeah. Uh and there are lots of stories which some of which I had to take out of the book of them discussing for example, in front of rather embarrassed diplomats in New York. Um so, It’s I I should say, for anyone who hasn’t read this book, you have you absolutely if you’re interested in these questions, you have to read entitled because you think you know about Andrew, but when you read the book and it’s there piled up in this way, I think it has um it has an effect on people.

Well, it’s you you said to me before that you’ve toured the book in the sort of shires of England and you’ve come across sort of typically Tory robust robustly monarchist in their opinions and the sense of disgust actually that they have with Andrew. Is the is it the equivalent to that sort of political disgust you were just talking about? This sense of elites acting with impunity and and for the royal family to be dragged into that, you know, sacred things are kind of becoming profane at that point, aren’t they? Absolutely, cuz I mean

they’re meant to be the moral guardians. They they’re the ones with the moral authority. Uh and I think a lot of trust and respect has gone and it is really surprising and people, you know, it’s a slightly strange experience because I spent most of my life kind of in the shadows behind authors and and you know, people will come up.

I mean the the gratifying thing is that for everyone who trolls you on social media, there are people who come up and say, “Actually, well done. That needed to be said.” >> Mhm. And I just hope more people will come forward and talk in the same way and call for more transparency. But, you know, for example, someone from the Household Cavalry the other day, um was was being very supportive.

Now, you know, the armed services and actually the judiciary and diplomats all serve the crown. And I’ve always you know, it was one of the reasons a lot of these diplomats wouldn’t talk to me. Um but if that that whole you know, contract is breaking down, then I think the royal family really does have problems. Now, there’s uh there’s a new chapter chapters in in entitled this time.

Yes, I added 10,000 words. I mean, what we I couldn’t really do was to have it completely reset. So, I kind of tried to bring the story up to date up to the arrest in February. Bring it up and up to date with all the Epstein disclosures. And within that, to drop in new stuff that I researched. I had about 100,000 words of new material.

Wow. Um so, I only used roughly about 5% of it. Uh and I will eventually do a new book called Untitled. But, uh yeah, there’s a lot of, you know, some of it is just more examples of Andrew’s predatory sexual behavior. Um more examples of of Sarah Ferguson using charities to push her social ambitions or to to to make money on the side.

A little bit more on the activities of the daughters, the fact that, you know, they’ve been given gifts uh which haven’t been declared. Uh that they are uh very actively involved in the Middle East, where they’re paid to make appearances at events. Uh there’s a little bit more on um uh what else? Um Well, you we talked about national security. Yeah.

I think this is this is definitely worth talking about. Andrew as a kind of vector by which um not necessarily pleasant foreign powers could sort of do things and influence things in Britain. How how did that work? Yeah, I think, you know, the the vulnerability uh in terms of penetrating the British establishment is the royal family.

If you can get close to members of the royal family, and people have tried, you know, giving giving them money to to be directors and be brand ambassadors. And, you know, they will then, as Epstein found, they will introduce you to some very useful people. And they have roles, they’re briefed with all sorts of sensitive information.

Uh and you can take advantage of that. And it’s no uh coincidence, you know, the number of Chinese spies that are kind of operating in the in in swimming the same waters as the royals. And it’s not just Andrew, I mean, others have been caught. Prince Michael has been caught. Uh uh and uh Sarah uh um Zara and Peter Phillips have also been um exposed.

Um but, you know, and we of course it’s a bit like MPs. You know, you’ll find that there will be people who turned to have worked out for uh Russians or Chinese working in their offices. I mean, there have been several cases of that recently. And that happens with the royals. And because there’s no scrutiny, because there’s no proper accountability, for example, to Parliament, uh because people turn a blind eye in the way they turned a blind eye to Andrew’s activities as a trade envoy.

Um, there’s no >> that come from, do you think? Is it Is it simply the sort of deference before the crown? Is it something that is sort of a learned behavior among British people? Because it’s some of the stories in Entitled, you know, you wonder how if it happened almost anywhere else, you think, okay, the whistle would be blown.

Is it Is it just deference that protected him? >> Absolutely. I think it it was deference. The word came from the top, uh and people, um, kind of kowtowed to that. You know, I talked to one permanent under secretary of the Foreign Office, and he said they made representations to the palace, and they were sent with a flea in the ear.

A friend of mine in MI6 actually went when they discovered uh Andrew had taken $5 million in a suitcase in Kazakhstan. One Carlos of Greece of Spain had also done so. And and Christopher Geidt sent them away again, said, “Look, the Queen won’t take this seriously.” And one of the bean counters in the UKTI talked to did query the fact, “Look, there there are all these these expenses for massages in Thailand.

What do we do with these?” And he was told, “Stick them into general accounting.” Uh and of course, all these people, and that was from his permanent under secretary, they’d get their gongs, they, you know, they they they get their tickets. >> the ladder, don’t they? >> They climb the ladder. And what was interesting is that one of the people who were most open with with me were often the most senior people who had kind of got their their their gongs.

Mhm. Um, and presumably thought their pensions were safe. But again, you know, you you you see these implicit threats being made about things like pensions. But people are Yeah, it’s just I mean I find it so extraordinary, you know, to get people will do the most extraordinary things to get a garden party invitation or a thick invitation to stick on the mantelpiece.

And you know, we’re living in the 21st century. I mean the ridiculous way that they they award themselves all these awards are all members of the Order of the Garter. I mean Andrew Andrew does retain the freedom of the City of London as we presently speak. Yes, that’s about the only thing he does still have, yeah. Um that what you’re describing is just corruption, isn’t it? Yes, I think so.

>> sort of sort of basic corruption. I I think so and it’s interesting when I interviewed a senior police officer who was involved investigating these sort of offenses. The point he made was that, you know, it’s not malfeasance in public office, it’s simple corruption. He also said he’s breached the Official Secrets Act.

You know, I’ve been threatened time and time again by government lawyers saying I’d breached the Official Secrets Act by talking to let’s say when I was doing intelligence history, a former intelligence official often who’ve often spoken publicly and and done interviews and yet somehow they think that, you know, they come after me as as low-hanging fruit.

But, you know, it’s very clear from those Epstein releases and again from my interviews that he was sharing information which was commercially sensitive, which politically sensitive, often defense material and in exchange, as you say, it’s corruption. He was being paid. People were paying his wife’s debts. He was being given loans that didn’t need to be repaid, etc.

>> And it was it was I think as well with the information that I mean Andrew was sending things like you know, the the British state’s guide to Helmand province business opportunities in 2010. He was sending this to Jeffrey Epstein at the height of you know, a critical moment in that war at one one the most deadly moments of of that war for British troops.

And Andrew has all these, you know, um honorary commands. And I think it was things like that that really made my skin crawl because you think with the you think with the monarchy that at the very least, you know, they do care about the armed forces. They do take that seriously. They do put their children through all kinds of, you know, uh Royal Marine training courses.

You know, Prince Harry was, you know, went through all of it. And yet there was Andrew. And it brings me to to an argument again that’s sometimes made about him, which is that it’s just him. So, you can just isolate him and say it was a bad apple. The orchard’s fine. You you don’t buy that, do you? No, I don’t.

I mean, I do sometimes say, you know, that actually we need to clear out the the the stables and it’s a few bad apples that undermine it for everyone else. You know, and there are good working members of our family >> yeah. who who, you know, who are, you know, pretty much driven by by public duty and uh no one there’s never been a hint of scandal around them, and certainly financial.

Um but, you know, unfortunately, there are other members of the family who who are doing this. But, I think what what really concerns me is the fact that they’re protected. Mhm. That they, you know, these stories everyone knew about. And I’m told there are lots of stories we don’t know about that have just never emerged, have been suppressed.

And if you talk to some journalists, they they, you know, there are all sorts of stories locked up in safes in in Fleet Street. >> Mhm. Um and I think the fact that the Queen and I believe the King has has has basically tried to kill this story. You know, again, the King has said the law must follow its course.

We will cooperate with the authorities. And yet you hear these stories, and I’ve seen the letters being sent out to protection officers reminding of them of their obligations of confidentiality. Yeah. Uh and so we we’re getting a sort of window dressing. What’s been said in public is very different to what’s going on in in private.

>> say that, you know, it’s not what’s being said in public. The King has released two statements which total, I think, just under 250 words. No member of of the House of Windsor has actually gone out in public and address any of any of this since Andrew himself did in 2019. So, it’s very, very quiet, I think, from them.

Yeah, absolutely. It It just kind of brings us to what what would be sensible for the monarchy to do now? Or what kind of reforms do you think would be sensible in order to sort of prolong their their to prolong the monarchy? Yeah, that’s right. Well, I think they are at a crossroads, and I think unless they do address the some of the concerns, because and if they dealt with this much earlier, we wouldn’t have these wider questions being asked about royal accountability and privilege.

I think they need to come clean about the relationship that what they knew. I mean, what people are actually heckling about, what did you know when? They need to answer that question. So, that and I think in some ways Charles needs to be the fall guy for this, you know, in some ways clean the stables and William can come with a clean slate.

He’s not associated with the cover-up. But in terms of of reform, I think parliamentary accountability is key. You’ve got to be able to ask questions. I know of three different members of the House of Lords who I’ve briefed with questions that they haven’t been that they haven’t been answered. Quite simple questions which are to do with Andrew’s role as a trade envoy when he was meant to be a in effect a civil servant.

You know, I think we need to review the sovereign grant. At the moment, it’s a percentage of their earnings from the duchies. Huge sums of money have been spent, and I think just a grant would a simple grant would be which is what happened before. I think they need to be more transparent about their finances.

You know, at least Charles declared how much tax he paid. William refuses to do that. I think that actually the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster really are public property and should come back within, you know, should come back within the the the the state. They’re They’re run as very much commercial enterprises with all the benefits of being treated as private estates. Yes.

Royal wills used to be open. I think we should go back to that position. I think with they were meant to not be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act apart from the normal exemptions. We need to actually go back to that position. >> Yeah. Uh, there was an argument for a royal register debated 20 years ago in Parliament which was kind of kicked into touch.

Uh, that would cover for example the activities of peer people like Beatrice and Eugenie and what they’re up to in the Middle East. Um, Prince Michael, uh, you know, with Putin. Uh, I think there is, um, Uh, I I think they just, yeah, they we need to be able, they need to be accountable to someone and I think Parliament is the obvious one.

But I think possibly a parliamentary commission could be look could be set up. A certainly parliamentary investigation into his time as a trade envoy. I mean, all these ambassadors and and people who wouldn’t talk to me, who know a lot, former foreign secretary >> be talking under oath. They should be talking exactly.

>> I think I feel the same way about the the close protection officers as well. Yeah. I think there is a real case here. Um, you know, we’ve been doing work with the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown about >> Brilliant stuff. That’s changed the whole debate. I have to congratulate you on those two pieces.

Listen, I mean, he’s you know, it’s Gordon Brown investigative journalist, who knew? But he, um, made some serious there’s some serious allegations there. And the only real way I can see them, uh, >> [gasps] >> seeing this being cleared up is if people who have thus far remained private have to talk. Yeah. Um, I agree. The other one I think that I would be interested to hear your view on is the Royal Archives.

As somebody who’s written so much about the Royal Family, tell us what how the Royal Archives work and why how they might be reformed in a way that would be sensible. >> Yeah, well, the Royal Archives are a bit like a restaurant where there’s no menu. You just go in and get the set they they give you what they want to give you.

Um, uh, so there needs to be a I mean, there clearly a private catalog. We need to see the public catalog. Mhm. Um, their access is basically if they like the look of the cut of your jib. So, I mean, I know lots and lots of people who are not allowed to go in. Uh, fortunately, they can’t keep me out because they let me in for my John Buchan book 30 years ago.

So, they can hardly now say you’re not allowed in. But, what they have they have a clever system where they say, um, uh, we’re all booked up for the next 6 months, I’m afraid. So, we’ll book you in on November. And then when you go there, you you look at the book and you feel there was actually been there since November. So, um, uh, they they they have ways of kind of controlling you.

But, um, It’s not transparent, is it? I mean, it’s Where is it? It’s in Windsor, isn’t it? It’s in Windsor. Um, I think there is an argument that Norman Baker makes that these papers should go to the National Archives. >> they should, yeah. You know, and again, you know, their argument is that these are private papers.

But, the abdication papers, for example, that was a constitutional crisis. That stuff should be in there. Mhm. And I think they’ve got to accept that they are public figures and even their private lives are part of that. Uh, you know, Andrew’s private life abusing the taxpayer by going on private time and going to these five-star hotels.

That’s paid for by the taxpayer. That is not his private life. That is something of the of of public interest. >> And I think the the grander arguments, um, for having a monarchy are all about, you know, I think Roger Scruton said the monarch is the land construed as a people. Yeah. Um, or no, sorry, the land construed as a person, not as a people.

But, I think if the land is construed as a person, that probably does mean that we should be able to see what that person’s archives are. Absolutely. >> I don’t see the I don’t think it’s illogical. I don’t think it just makes me feel like they have something to hide, which I’m not saying they do at all, but Well, I mean, the papers, you know, there are still Victor papers in the Victorian period for the royals that are closed. Yeah.

I mean, I’m doing Prince Philip next. And I mean, I eventually, having gone as far as I think to the Information Commissioner, got, um, the the National archives to release his his his report from from Gordons and by some he’s dead. His report from Gordons and when he joined Dartmouth, which is very very complimentary.

Now, why is that closed? Everyone else is so you know, all the SOE files are open. I mean, when I tried to get access to Andrew’s files, I mean, none of the files on his time as a trade envoy are open. I was told nothing would be open till 2065. And we’ve got this ridiculous position now still where there’s an official life in instead of having a bunch of historians come in and look at the Queen’s papers, they got Paul Wybrow the valet to to go through them who’s not trained.

We long long history of royals destroying papers. Prince Philip arranged his papers in vertical commas before he died. The Queen Mother uh papers were destroyed by Princess Margaret. Queen Victoria’s daughters destroyed a lot of material including I think rewriting a diary. You know, these are public records and should be available.

Um I talked to a special branch officer who said that when I said this very obvious, there’s only one file on the surveillance of Wallis Simpson. And he said, “Well, we threw the others away. We thought that was one representative file.” Now, in the world where we can store things digitally, there’s no reason why these archives can’t be preserved.

This constant pressure to keep material closed um uh in in other archives. It’s a problem I had when I did my book on Mountbatten. The University of Southampton had to basically had ministerial degree the the directions preventing them from opening up papers. And we see that you know, with Churchill is a good example.

The Bodleian are also caught by this. And then other stuff sneaks through in auctions, which is often private auctions where I can from collectors where I often get stuff. And American archives have a lot of stuff, which of course they can’t control. Yeah. But we’ve got an official life. It’s been written by This is of of of Queen Elizabeth II.

>> II, yes. Uh it’s been by Anna Keay, very good historian, but she’s a historian of the Civil War. Uh she is very close to the royal family. She sits on [clears throat] various quangos. Um now maybe it’ll be a breath of fresh air, but I just don’t think we’re going to get a completely independent view. And it would have been much, much easier if they just said, “Look, the papers are going to be in the National Archives on the 1st of November. Yeah.

Uh and it’s going to be, you know, basically pile in there.” Yeah. >> And then we’d get all these, you know, people could, you know, write different books. Um so this idea of it’s very sort of Stalinist, this idea of these official histories still. Yeah. Um No, it is. I mean, um there’s one thing that I don’t think any I think I sort of wouldn’t be forgiven if I didn’t quickly ask you about um some of the pre-publicity for the new Entitled uh includes a fairly extraordinary revelation concerning uh Sarah Ferguson and P. Diddy.

Now, this is just talk us through a bit what what you found out. >> Well, I think people are surprised by it. I wasn’t too surprised. It’s the idea that they had a sort of uh friends with benefits relationship over several years. We knew that they they um were friends. I mean, there were pictures of her at his various parties.

Um but I think what’s interesting is the reaction of Sarah Ferguson. She’s There’s been no attempt to uh no complaints about the book so far. Uh I mean, she tried to to I mean, there were lawyers’ letters before the book was published, before I even had seen anything. But since the book’s come out, uh she’s been quiet.

She’s claiming that this is This is false, that she only met P. Diddy twice. Well, there’s photographic evidence of the meeting on more than two occasions. Um I actually got something wrong. I said they met in 2002. In fact, there are pictures of her at P. Diddy’s birthday in 1998. >> Right, okay. So it’s interesting the re- you know, the the the reaction is is you know, we kind of fired her up.

And actually the gratifying thing is I’ve discovered today that there will be other stories appearing in the press from other people. Um so, not material that I was got I got. Uh which will back up the things I’m saying. I mean, some ways I’d like to keep the focus very much on the way that Andrew abused his position as a trade envoy sharing information he shouldn’t have done.

Um and I’d like to focus again on the way they’ve abused their royal position. >> Yes. This, you know, it’s very easy kind of to dismiss my book as a bit of salacious gossip. It’s all involved with writing about sex. >> I don’t think so. I think the sex is simply one you know, when you’re writing a biography, you’re you’re you know, it’s a life.

And what are the what are the kind of issues that these lives you’ve written about raise? They raise things about sort of sexual power, about money, financial power, um about the misuse of public funds, uh about one of our great institutions in a time of anti-institutional feeling. I mean, it’s a much bigger, broader story. Well, that’s not my own feeling.

I mean, you’ve got to write a book warts and all. I mean, I think, you know, Sarah Ferguson presents herself as a wonderful mother, charitable, >> and and and and and she and her daughters of you know, supporting all these charities for trafficked women. She’s like Mother Teresa, Andrew. You don’t understand.

>> is. She is, exactly. And that’s, you know, what the the the position she’s kind of spun. She describes herself as a humanitarian. Mhm. And yet here she is bringing her her some of the girls when they met Peter Nygard, who’s now in prison in Canada for sex offenses. They were, you know, toddler, I mean, they were sort of like five and six.

She was taking teenage daughters to to meet or just out of teenage at to meet Epstein as soon as he came out of prison. Yeah. Um she took 16-year-old Eugenie to one of these yacht parties that that P. Diddy had. Uh and um this suggests a certain, shall we say, cynicism about her charitable position since she doesn’t seem to care and she’s introducing all sorts of young girls including god daughters to people like Epstein after he’s been convicted of soliciting a minor.

It it seems a very strange thing to do. The optics are certainly not good. >> Look, I mean it’s other people can make their judgements but I suppose it comes back to this thing. You’re writing a biography. This is something that happened. It goes in, doesn’t it? I mean that’s you know, if you’re trying to tell the truth, that’s what you do.

And and you and we’re working at a time when it’s hard to tell the truth about these people. Yeah, absolutely. I mean you know, particularly when I I always say I I look at things often through the prism of the marriage. So you have to look at the private life. You know, I’m not writing you know, military history or something.

But at the same time you’re you’re absolutely right, you know, you can’t just sugarcoat the royals because somehow they’re given a pass because they’re royals. Everyone should be treated the same and that’s why I hope the charges will be brought against both Sarah Ferguson and Andrew. I think there are good good case for both of them to be charged.

I’m afraid my cynicism suggests that they won’t be. They’ll find some excuse not to do so. They’ll say they’re not going to get a fair trial cuz the last thing the royal family want is more dirty linen washed in public.