How the Royal family gets away with it

0:02This is a global production. The House of Windsor has taken yet another battering this week. All over the world, allegations from Princess Diana's own brother that the king himself was giddy at her death. That he told Earl Spencer in the hours after her tragic car crash in Paris in 1997 that her sons would forget her soon enough. On paper, pulped or otherwise, you might think that that could be enough at least to wound a monarch whose own ascension was almost halted by the toxin which flowed from the Diana marriage and her demise. And yet it hasn't really. The battering is felt like toasting at best.

0:43Why? The passage of time? The peers that I mention, isn't there always one? Or is it something else? The power of the media to still relentlessly mediate royal stories, an alliance between palace and press, which affects royal coverage in ways most of us don't ever even see. Andrew Lowney has seen that process at the sharp end. He's one of the few writers and journalists about royal affairs who can't be placed neatly into the category of courtier. His book, Entitled, A Biography of the Former Duke and Duchess of York, became a bestseller because it spared no royal blushes and applied scrutiny, which we rarely see.

1:22Exposing Andrew and Fergie as well, the entitled figures that they then were. So we thought what better week to invite Andrew into the newsagent studio, that's Andrew Lowney, to assess how damaging has this book been? What is the state of the House of Windsor now? And how does the palace work with press to curate our monarchs and princes? Welcome to the News Agents.

1:48The News Agents. Well, Andrew Lowney, welcome back to the News Agents. Let's just actually start very, very clear. Do you believe Earl Spencer? Yes, I do. I think broadly speaking, I've only read half the book, but I mean, broadly speaking, I think he's telling the truth. It was a good opportunity to challenge the narrative that we've been fed for the last 30 years, and I think that's what he wanted to do. I think the problem is he's been let down by some sloppy editing and poor legal work, and so he has to take responsibility clearly for the mistakes he's made, but those should have been picked up.

2:20And so I think the sad thing is that the message that he had has kind of been diluted, and indeed in some ways has been destroyed, by the fact that he has made some very silly mistakes in the book. I suppose the natural thing to ask would be what's the point of it? I mean it's so long ago I mean of course he's got the right to write a book about his sister if he wishes but what's the point of it all? Well his argument is there's going to be a lot coming out next year for the anniversary I mean I know dozens of books lined up television programmes and you know everyone wants to kind of shape the historical record he wants to get his version of events out before I think as he honestly said before the TV programmes and the books in which he has no control bring out a slightly different version.

3:05That seems to me a perfectly genuine reason. I mean, after all, that's why politicians and generals write their memoirs. The thing I have to say, Andrew, I mean, we've talked before about Prince Andrew, formerly known as Prince Andrew, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. And, you know, as scandals go in the royal family, how does this compare? How does it compare to that? Well, what, the Charles Spencer with the Andrew one? Let me rephrase it. I mean, how, obviously the royal family have been going through plenty of turbulence in recent years. It always feels as they are in one way or another. Even in the king's short reign, there have been lots of scandals, lots of problems.

3:45How does this compare to all of those, would you say? Or will it just disappear? No, I think this is just another nick in the whole institution. And it's going to begin to snowball depending on how they respond. You know, I think the Andrew thing is very serious because it was about endemic corruption within the institution itself, not just two rogue apples there. But I think people sense a vulnerability with the monarchy. I think people are more emboldened. I think people are much less deferential. We've had many more programs questioning their finances, for example. And I think even members of the royal family sense an opportunity here.

4:19I don't think it's a coincidence that Harry has popped back and we've got now Sarah Ferguson back in town. so it's um and i think the problem is that the monarchy always reacts too little too late uh and just misjudges the mood and instead of addressing all these issues they kind of try and cover them up uh and i think once people realize the cover-up that's gone on over andrew over the last 40 years i think they really will be in trouble well we'll come back to andrew but just on this question around the sort of he said he said with earl spencer and and the king um one of the things I've been most interested in really is not so much the substance of it, which after all we can probably never really prove, but the reaction to it.

5:00I mean, I have been amazed, I don't know about you, at the number of people, you know, senior media people, commentators, whatever, who all have been talking about this idea that the palace has vehemently denied everything that Earl Spencer said, but their statement didn't deny it. No, I mean, and this is always what happens. It's some sort of woolly statement, which they think discredits him, but it doesn't address the issue, absolutely. I think what's very interesting is we've seen very coordinated attacks on him. It's all about him as a father and a husband. And they basically called him mad, or not mad, they basically said that he was just, you know, disturbed and he couldn't really remember things at the time.

5:37Yeah, I mean, they always play the man rather than the ball. I mean, I've had experience with this myself, and the messenger gets blamed. So, yeah, I mean, I think what's interesting is that they responded so vehemently and quickly when in fact a dignified silence might have been cleverer. I mean, I think the problem with Charles Spencer as with Harry is they kind of host themselves with their own petard. Why do you think it... Because, you know, it was atypical, wasn't it? Why do you think they did respond at all and then so personally, so viscerally? Well, there's a lot of personal animus between the royal family and Spencer.

6:08I mean, we saw it even in the eulogy. But I think that the sense of someone as an insider always sounds more authoritative than someone like me writing. I mean, it's true of intelligence books. When I wrote intelligence books, they would come down hard on a Peter Wright, but they would let things by people like me get through, even though it came from often the same source. So I think also maybe a new, more aggressive approach to these things, because they realise never explain, never complain doesn't work. Who knows what the thinking is? But I think they're always trying to change the narrative, I mean, to suit their own purposes.

6:43And, you know, we often find them briefing against other members of the royal family to take attention away from the principals, etc. It's what Harry complained about and it's what Diana complained about. Is it reflective, perhaps, of, you know, all these years on, as you say, nearly 30 years on now from her death in 1997, that she still touches such a nerve that they're still afraid of her in one way and afraid of her legacy, that she's so untouchable and become so iconic that she made them afraid when she was alive, and she still is in death. Well, I mean, she's mortalised by her early death, and of course, you know, people project onto her what they want.

7:25But yes, I mean, she was a sort of star, and that was the problem, that she kind of eclipsed the other members of the royal family. They didn't like that, and that was part of the sort of background to these discussions with Charles Spencer. I mean, I don't believe that the king was quite as callous as he says. But again, these things can be in the heat of rather angry exchanges. Things can be misinterpreted, can be misheard. So, you know, there could be some truth on both sides. But yes, I think she still has this power. I mean, the fact that 30 years after her death, there are going to be so many programmes.

7:58New people are still coming forward. We've got new information. I mean, actually, it'll be quite uncomfortable for them, won't it? Because, you know, inevitably, as you say, there will be so much recollection and reflection on her life and her death. And let's be honest, I mean, I'm still amazed to some extent that there isn't more thinking about, reflection on how they behave towards her in those years. Well, I mean, this was an opportunity to do that. And I mean, there have been. There was a very good documentary that Phil Craig made with Patrick Jefferson, which kind of raised this years ago.

8:31but I think the problem is that yeah I mean there is a lot of support for her still there's a sense that she was badly treated I mean my own view of her has changed the more I learn in that I think there was clearly a lot of briefing against her they talked to tame journalists to present her as mentally unbalanced we clearly had the panorama thing you begin to see why she may have felt paranoid and you see how they use tame journalists to feed a narrative and they try and silence others. And I mean, we saw that, I mean, I saw that with the Andrew book. I mean, the fact that ABC television put pressure, sorry, the palace put pressure on ABC television not to run their programme on Giffrey, threatening not to give them access in future to members of the royal family.

9:15And that's how they operate. I mean, they deny, they then send legal letters, they then either use pressure or patronage to kind of keep everyone in line. Do you think that's happening with this story? Yes. With the Spencer story? Yes, I think there's been a very consistent response from all the usual suspects get trotted out to defend the monarchy. And it's very hard to find independent commentators, you know, who are prepared to stand with their heads above the parapet. Ian Wilson is one. I thought it was very interesting that Richard Kay came out and said that Charles Spencer had said similar things to him at the time.

9:47But I had an interesting experience the other day. There's one called Janet Jenkins, who was one of Charles's lovers in the 70s and 80s. She wrote, they exchanged letters. Some of those letters have been, she sold, have been published. She said that Charles has said very similar things to her in letters written after Diana's death. Now, I raised this in a podcast last week. Within hours, the palace had been in touch with Janet Jenkins saying that she shouldn't talk to anyone. She shouldn't show the letters to anyone. And I've seen the text messages from her to my source because I was very keen to interview her and encourage her to come forward.

10:21Because this was, of course, backing up Charles Spencer. So that's the sort of pressure that's going on behind the scenes. And people do feel scared. What was Charles saying to her? Well, I mean, I think the tenure of it was, you know, thank goodness this makes my life a lot easier. Really? And I suppose you have to. And this is why I do can at least imagine a world in which Spencer's case is credible, because I think one has to put oneself back into the mindset of 1997. Right. And the years leading up to that, that she had been such a problem, such a thorn in the side that she was constantly getting attention.

10:56She was such a star. And ultimately, we know that Charles had been utterly tunnel vision about marrying Camilla. Yeah. Well, it brings back that time, which they thought they'd kind of done and dusted. And Camilla was now queen and everyone had forgotten about her and no one was throwing bread rolls at her. And this brings back that moment. And people, you know, still feel very strongly about how Diana was treated. I mean, I think one thing that's interesting is you say, why now? All the key players who could disprove Charles Spencer are now dead. So Robert Fellows, perhaps the Queen and Prince Philip, his own mother, people who might have been some sort of restraint on him are no longer there.

11:36He feels free to talk about this. So that's one argument for waiting. But, you know, I think he's clearly felt this very strong sense of resentment, the sense that his sister has been introduced by the royal family, and he's using this as an opportunity to settle all scores. This is the War of the Waleses, you know, just going on for another, you know, 30 years on. Is it also, I mean, just from a media point of view, something that's always, one has to marvel at, in a sense, and you've got to hand it to the palace, the rehabilitation of the Queen, Queen Camilla, someone who was perhaps unfairly at the time loathed by much of the public who was treated very badly by the press in some ways um now this almost adored figure by the press i mean i can't think apart from the king himself almost no one gets a a better press the way that she's written up her work all of these this sorts of thing is it also because that any time diana is invoked and is talked about and that time is dredged up that it almost invites the public to remember the other Camilla, the Camilla of the 1990s rather than the 2020s.

12:43Yes, well that's their worry. I mean you're absolutely right, I mean I think Camilla has kind of owned her spurs, she's just quietly got on done her duty, never complained and I think there is a respect for that in the public and you know people do change their minds, you know you can still you know feel that clearly Diana was wronged but Camilla has kind of worked her passage back and I think one of the interesting things is so many of the royals could work their passage back I mean, we think how unpopular Anne was. And now, of course, she's now seen as, you know, a national treasure. But how actually with good reputation management, even Prince Andrew, I think, could be rehabilitated.

13:20Really? Well, maybe a little bit. I'll tell you what, I hope you know some pretty good PR people. Because, I mean, it's an uphill struggle, I'd say, right? I think Andrew might be tough. But, I mean, Sarah Ferguson is back. She's hoping that she's going to play the victimhood again and she'll be back. And she's done it twice before. So it's possible to change public perceptions. When you talk about the people and the journalists, the sort of favoured journalists that exist, how does that work? Because it's not a world that most people would understand or see. How does the palace, how does it conduct its work and its PR?

13:53Well, I mean, I'm not privy to it, but I mean, clearly they are very good at employing very good members of the pack to come and work as royal press people. We've just had someone from Sky go across. We, clearly, Tobin and Andre, who's the press secretary, was the male. And this helps, I mean, you know, with their own personal contacts to kind of suppress stories. And Piers Morgan, even yesterday, I think, on the programme, was talking about how he killed stories for Diana by being close to her. So there is a sort of deal that goes on. In return for access, they will kind of help control the narrative.

14:27And, I mean, there's some people like the principles that are kind of you can't touch. But, you know, it's a bit like how Max Clifford worked. You give them a bone to kind of stop them knowing another bone. I think there's some people, Tom Sykes is a good example, who didn't play ball with them, was thrown out of the Royal Rotor, is now working at the Daily Beast, who has good connections. And the way I work as a biographer is to kind of come out the outside. Generally, I work off records if they're available. But when they're not with a contemporary figure, you have to talk to people. But there are plenty of people you can talk to who are not, shall we say, in the centre.

15:01And I think so many of the royal writers just depend on a few courtiers, tame people who will help brief them because they can't be bothered to go and look at the forums, to go and look at the sort of trace people through the letter of royal, find them on LinkedIn, etc. I mean, I don't particularly remember the sort of period of the war of the Wales and so on and all the sort of tabloid stories there were at that time. But my understanding of that era is that the royal family generally, perhaps the Queen accepted, but generally speaking, much of the royal family was being battered constantly by the press, negative stories by the press.

15:39I can barely think of an institution in Britain now that I feel gets a better press. very often, pretty much across the piece, a sort of unscrutinised, kind of rose-tinted glasses kind of approach. So what's changed? Because it feels to me that there is so much... It feels to me as if there's potentially more deference now in the press than there wasn't, say, the 1990s. Well, I think the hacking, all the hacking scandal, I think, you know, the tabloid and the end of the news of the world, people like that, you know, people haven't got the money to investigative journalism, so it's easy to do the soft journalism, just get fed the PR spin.

16:13I think that's one thing. I think what's very interesting is, as you say, we've had this period actually of reasonable calm until perhaps the beginning of Charles's reign. And yet support for the monarchy is gradually diminished. It's not shaped by the scandals. It seems to be just either growing indifference or whatever. But you're absolutely right. You know, I was looking at some stuff this morning and the commentators are saying, you know, ignore Charles Spencer. That's not important. The really important thing is that David Beckham was there with Catherine in a lovely frock opening something.

16:45And I think that in some ways is what the audience wants. And I just know again from podcasts that will sometimes have me on or won't have me on, is they're rather shaped by their listeners. And they don't want people, for example, to be critical of Catherine and William, because all their supporters like them. It's safe to attack Meghan and Harry. And I think a lot of these broadcasters are shaped by their audience and are feeding their audience what they want to hear. When your book came out on Andrew and Sarah Fergus, did you experience, in terms of how the press covered your book, could you feel the hand of the palace?

17:24Oh, absolutely. I discovered a story the other day about a journalist who was told not to do anything with me, that he would lose access if he talked to me. I mean, there were some pretty critical reviews put out, I mean, even before the book was published. There was stuff on Wikipedia, for example, which is all negative, even though the book has had very good reviews elsewhere. Yeah, I had invitations rescinded. I had interviews that I did that were never run. I had certain papers that never covered me. The Sun, for example, have hardly covered my book, and you would have thought it was a man from heaven for them.

18:01When I appeared once on a podcast a year before the book came out and was critical of Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, she complained to them. They took down the piece based on what I'd said and did an interview with her. And I think what's very interesting is all the stories in Sarah Ferguson now are coming out from the sun. They're the ones who found her in Austria, a picture taken by one of her favorite photographers. They're the ones saying that she's writing a book now when I suspect this is all part of a negotiation with the palace to get them to pay her bills. And wasn't there a briefing so she asked you were a Republican Marxist?

18:38Yes, you can see I'm a Marxist, I'm a Republican. Red Lowney. I'm well known, all my, you know, it is, it's very difficult. But I mean, also, you know, this stuff, I use prostitutes, I'm always taking people's numbers and wanting to ring them up. Do you think it was the palace briefing that you were a Marxist? No, I think there's a lot. No, I think there's a lot of stuff from people who just are very, very strong royalists and feel that, you know, I'm going to bring the edifice down and I need to be brought down. I think there has been some, shall we say, coordinated response. I mean, it's quite well delineated that, I mean, Fergie was talking to private detectives to try and smear Virginia Giffray.

19:16We see in the Epstein files Epstein, Ghislaine and Andrew getting together to bring a PR firm to try and undermine Virginia's testimony. We've got clearly all these people like Jay Beecher and Victoria Harvey who are trying to create an alternative narrative. I mean you mentioned Virginia Gaffray is it right you think that in a way I mean one of the things that I think doesn't get enough attention is the way, let's take this Earl Spencer quote which to be fair was on the record in this case, looked like a denial wasn't really a denial, was basically an attack on his character or certainly an attack on his state of mind but they do that quite a lot don't they?

19:55I mean they do that quite a lot on the record or off the record I mean they did that to Virginia Gaffray Absolutely Absolutely. Absolutely. And I've seen it. I mean, just when my books came out, when I did the book on Traitor King on Edward VIII, I had no broadsheet reviews for six months. And the briefing was going out. There's nothing new in this. He's just got an agenda. This is ridiculous. He's misread history, etc. So and that was coming. Have someone listening to this said you were paranoid, Andrew? Well, I mean, I began as a literary biographer. I then moved into intelligence and I moved into royal books kind of just by chance.

20:35And I certainly didn't believe in conspiracy theories. I mean, I have a PhD. But increasingly, I do feel, yes, that there is, well, as I say, there is an attempt to create a narrative and news management. And that's probably true of anything. Any good PR company's job is do that. Exactly. That's their job to put a spin on things. But I think it's a little it's a different between putting a spin and telling lies. And I think increasingly we've seen a lot of lies being told and denials. And that's not true just of the royal family. It's true, for example, comments that were made about about Prince Andrew.

21:14I mean, I got denials from former foreign secretaries saying they had no dealings with Andrew, which is clearly not true. And certainly talking to sensitivity reviewers who look at, who basically decide what goes into the archives. The line they're given is basically anything on the royals, take out, this doesn't go to the archives and this goes to Buckingham Palace. I suppose as well, I mean, just thinking about it, of all public institutions, of all institutions generally, I mean, I suppose the monarchy, how it knows that it relies on consent and that consent cannot be readily expressed. It can't be expressed to the ballot box, so on.

21:52It can't really do very much. It's in a sort of state of sort of permanent grace. And I suppose because it knows that it needs that consent more than most any other institution, it zealously guards its PR and its reputation. And so it doesn't surprise me, in a sense, the phenomenon you're describing, because it must exist in a permanent state of paranoia. But surely the way to earn trust and respect is to be accountable, to be transparent and to be honest. Indeed. Rather than to do cover-ups, because cover-ups are always worse than often the original crime. I want to talk a bit more about Andrew, which is obviously your speciality.

22:28But before we do, the Earl Spencer affair, I suppose we can call it. Do you think that he is being fatally undermined by the Piers Morgan mistake? Yes, I do think that that is what people remember and they will use. Do you think Piers is speaking to the palace about it? No, I think Piers, you know, understandably feels pretty upset by it. I mean, it's a very it's a harsh thing to say. and when it's not true, and when, as he pointed out, he actually was very friendly with Diana, he's quite entitled to make a fuss. Do you think they'll end up pulping the book? Well, I think they should. You do? Yeah.

23:07I mean, what tends to happen in these things is they say they're going to pulp it and, you know, quietly nothing happens. But, yeah, and I think what's interesting is this is the publisher that published The Salt Path, shown to be, you know, not accurate. I mean, we went through, on my book, 18 different legal reads. so this is the stuff that should be picked up by the lawyers and a sub-editor apart from Charles Spencer so it's very very sloppy publishing as well when we come back we'll be talking to Andrew as I say about his speciality which is the former Prince Andrew

24:09We'll see you next time. Shop Halloween decor now at Wayfair.com. Wayfair, every style, every home.

24:25So where are we on the Andrew Mountbatten Windsor story? Because in a sense, I mean, I don't think there could be any doubt. It is easily the most serious scandal institutionally to rock the palace, I think, for decades. it isn't just about personal impropriety or like sexual affairs or anything like that we're talking very very the most serious allegations and yet it sort of seems to have disappeared rather well it's interesting that the briefing that's going on is poor old Prince Andrew's in limbo he doesn't know what's happening etc which actually is not true I mean he's been able to travel freely his passport wasn't taken away he's been going I understand to the Middle East he's been going to France he's been visiting his I mean he's been going to Gatcombe Park I couldn't see Princess Anne.