Why Andrew's Epstein Fall Has Only Begun: Author | The Daily Beast Podcast

So Andrew basically has been thrown under the bus and of course if some of the Epstein material gets released as we hope, I think that's going to open up a whole new can of worms.

I'm Joanna Cole, this is the Daily Beast podcast and close followers may remember that eight weeks ago we had on the author Andrew Lowney to talk about his book entitled The Rise and the Fall of the House of York. How little did Andrew know quite what impact that book would have. Last week saw the King stripping Prince Andrew of his royal titles and banishing him

from the 30-room royal lodge to a much smaller farmhouse in a corner of God-forsaken Norfolk, which is rainy and windy on the Sandringham estate. Though there is very good grouse shooting, just pointing that out. But I've spent a lot of time in Norfolk, so I happen to know that the weather there is frequently grey.

Anyway, of course, there was also then the follow on publication of Virginia Dufresne's book, Nobody's Girl. But what this is all amounting to is the adjacency and indeed the friendship and the lying about the friendship with none other than Epstein, Epstein, Epstein. So no time to waste. Let's get into it with Andrew Lowney and talk about his role in stripping Prince Andrew of his Royal titles.

Andrew Lowney, welcome back. Last time, I'm very pleased to say we had you on the podcast on the day of the release of your book entitled, subtitled, The Rise and Fall of the House of York. And the fall has continued since the publication of your book and of course the publication of Nobody's Fool by Virginia Dufry. Can you bring us up to date with what

on earth is happening with Andrew, formerly known as Prince?

Well, I mean he's been sent in effect into exile, exile in Britain. So he, I mean finally the palace have got to grips with this scandal, they're actually trying to get ahead of it. They realised that public opinion was way ahead of them, that the public opinion was very concerned about all the information that was coming out. And as you say, the Virginia Giffray book, I think it really sort of personalized and

humanized the story, but we'd had a whole series of leaks showing that his links with Epstein went on for much longer than he claimed. He was basically lying. And that's true of Sarah Ferguson as well. So the king felt he needs to act. I mean people were asking bigger questions now about the monarchy, its purpose, its finances, and they kind of wanted to shut that story down. So Andrew basically has been thrown under the bus

to save the rest of them. And so he at the moment he's going to Sandringham, the royal estate, which is a private estate. It's not Crown Estate property, so therefore nothing to do with the taxpayer. His wife, who claimed to be very loyal to him, has now become less loyal since he's no longer a prince and living in Royal Lodge and is going off to Portugal or Switzerland. He may well end up going to the Middle East because there are also calls for him to be investigated for his sexual and financial

crimes and that's coming from the former head of Royal Security from a former chief prosecutor in Britain and so I don't think the story's over for him and that's why the Royal Family is so keen to distance themselves from him. So there's a good chance he may end up actually going physically abroad into exile to somewhere where there isn't an extradition treaty.

Wow, I mean this is such an extraordinary development, isn't it? Because when you came on in September, you were talking about your biggest hope was that they would be somehow pulled off the public financial role so they were no longer supported. Is this much wilder than you

could have imagined? Oh absolutely, the whole thing is being almost a perfect storm, but there was clearly a deep public resentment about the way some of the roles, particularly these two had operated and that kind of emerged and I think you know particularly seeing there was a recent appearance of them at a funeral where people felt they were pretty shameless and tried to sort of grandstand it and that I think was another factor. But

there's clearly been underlying sort of concern about how elites have operated in their own interests taking advantage of other people and I think it plays into that sort of trope at the moment. But yeah I never expected this reaction.

Congratulations and as many people say you couldn't be more of the establishment. You're a Cambridge educated historian. And here you are now really causing some serious movement within the establishment. So can you just talk us through what Andrew is alleged to have done and why it might be that he can't just stay in exile in the UK but he actually has to move to a country with no extradition

order. What is it actually that he's most likely do you think to be accused of? And then let's talk about people that used to work for him now beginning to

tell on him as it were. Yeah well I I'm getting two or three people a day coming forward, quite senior people, former protection officers and staff, people who I think want to get on the right side of history or don't feel more emboldened now. I think the most likely charge is malfeasance in public office or misconduct in public office which carries life imprisonment and there are two, I suppose, elements to this. One is recently in a leaked email it was shown that he had tried to get

a public official, his PPO, to investigate Giffrey and indeed Smearhair. So that's one element. Can you just remind Americans what a PPO is? Sorry, a PPO is a police protection officer so these are the close protection officers around him. So someone who would have known him very well, but is paid for by the taxpayer reports to the Metropolitan Police. I think there's other things. I mean, he was looked at 20 years ago by the National Crime Agency, or certainly MPs called for it. And this is for his

time as a special trade envoy, where he basically was lining his own pockets. Those things I think would be grounds for investigation and I think for charges to be brought. And in the past no one has really dared go there for a member of the royal family. The Met sort of skirted some of this stuff, particularly the stuff around sex trafficking. The Met being the Metropolitan Police. Sorry, you need to have a little dictionary with me. And so the Metropolitan Police looked at some of the sex allegations and said there was nothing to see. Well, the office for basically scrutinizing the police, for independent policing has now

come forward and said, look, you need to look at this properly. I mean, I found even when I put in a freedom of information request, they wouldn't even tell me whether they investigated Andrew or not. So we've got that, we've got a private prosecution being launched by Republic, the anti-monarchist group. We have the former head of Royal Security

and the former, I should say, head of the prosecution service for the North of England saying that there are grants for him to be possibly charged. So there is a sort of groundswell and I think public opinion still feels he hasn't been held to account properly. The only thing that's changed is he's moved house and he's no longer Prince.

He hasn't really had to explain himself. And we've now got the Senate Oversight Committee wanting him to give testimony if necessary by Zoom. We've got people calling for him again to talk to the FBI, to talk to the lawyers of the victims. So there's a groundswell of opinion that is really pushing and the Royal Family were sort of behind all this. They thought they'd seized initiative last Thursday by getting rid of the titles, getting him out of Royal Lodge

but I think they still haven't gone far enough. I mean, there was something so sinister about one of the emails that got released, I think as part of the email dump from the Oversight Committee, which had him saying several months after he'd said that he'd cut off his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, you know, we're on the same side, don't worry, Looking forward to playing together again soon. Is there a suggestion that he slept with more of Jeffrey Epstein's network of young women than just

Virginia Dufry?

So, yes, of course, there are lots of women who are connected with him. There were several interviewed at during some of the legal cases who pleaded the Fifth Amendment. There's a woman who has now emerged in the Melon Sunday here paper has written about her without identifying her as a victim. I've certainly come across a woman who I think was sex trafficked to him and actually one of the other interesting things is that Andrew was passing some of his girlfriends to Epstein and one of them who later

married a very rich banker. I think many more names will emerge, many more victims I think now feel confident of coming forward. We're going to see more leaks from I think some of these legal depositions and of course if some of the Epstein material gets released as we hope I think that's going to open up a whole new can of worms.

The irony is that in many ways, the accusations against Andrew were always hiding in plain sight. I mean, his tabloid nickname and the way he was referred to by the British reporters was as Randy Andy. You have in your book a riveting chapter about how he behaved sometimes when he went on royal tours. For those who haven't read the book, can you recount his weekend in Thailand?

Yes, well one of the episodes I think is 2004 where he goes to the King of Thailand's celebrations paid for by the taxpayer. And this is material, this is source material. So Ian Proud, a diplomat who's actually subsequently written more about this, was one of my sources. Another is a man called Andrew McGregor Marshall who's the Reuters correspondent there and had a member of the Thai royal family. And they all said Andrew insisted on going to this very expensive hotel because he liked the nightclub in the basement. He didn't go to see stay in the residence of the ambassador.

And in the course of four days, he basically had 40 prostitutes brought to him. He was swapping them with a narrow prince who was also in the hotel. And he even went on a trip to Chiang Mai with his half Thai mistress, Sonia Kooling.

So, I mean mean he was very open about it. I think the whole point about Andrew's activities is he didn't operate alone. He was enabled and protected by his staff, by diplomats, civil servants, by the palace. So I mean they've changed the tune now and they clearly kind of want to expose him but you know this wouldn't have happened without all these people supporting him and I

think that's what's so extraordinary. I got a story this morning about him in Hong Kong where he took the whole floor of the Landmark Hotel and was entertaining prostitutes there. I've got stories of him being paid to open golf courses and one of his requests was 16 year old blondes. There's a story I tell in the book from the consulate in South Africa where his private secretary asked, he said, we have here's a list of requirements. He only drinks water at room temperature, he likes Weiderbricks for breakfast and by the way he likes blondes.

And the diplomat replied, I'm a diplomat, I'm not a pimp. I remember that quote from the book it's an excellent quote. Incredibly brazen and amazing that it's taken until now and

also you have had personally issues reporting this book correct? Yes I mean

you know we had some legal letters from Sarah Ferguson the attempts to intimidate me saying they're monitoring my social media. Foreign office told diplomats not to talk to me. We've had various papers like Vanity Fair actually interview me and then not run the story. I've had my social media people have had to cut the comments because there was a whole

campaign of critical comments. I've had stories spread about me that I wanted young white escorts, underage escorts.

Right. I mean, they were trying to slime you in the way it turns out he was trying to get his protection officers to slime Virginia Giuffre.

Absolutely. And I think I report in the book on how a PR firm was brought in to go after Jouffre and that's what I'm told they've done with me. So there's a sort of concerted campaign to undermine anyone who is

trying to tell the truth about this story. So what on earth was Sarah Ferguson making of all this? Because she must have known that he was spending weekends roaring through 40 prostitutes. I mean, Jeffrey Epstein is said to have had an insatiable appetite and needed to have at least three massages with a happy ending every day, not happy ending for the girls delivering them, of course. But the idea of getting through 40 prostitutes over a weekend. I mean, it's sort of imagination boggles.

But what do we think that Sarah Ferguson and his daughters knew of this behavior?

Well, that's a good question. I mean, Sarah Ferguson stayed on a regular basis at Epstein's home. She must have noticed it was pretty unusual sort of things going on there. So there are more numbers actually for Sarah Ferguson in the little black book than for Andrew. So you know I think she knows a lot more, she should be a material witness for the FBI. I think you know Sarah was with him often when and the children when they were introduced to P. Diddy and Peter Nygaard

and all these people who subsequently being charged with sexual assault. So, you know, there's a famous picture of Pietrus Pietrus Pietrus's 18th birthday party with Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell as sort of some of the most important guests.

So this was a world that they were operating in the whole time and I think the daughters were taken once Epstein had come out of prison. I mean there was like a special trip to sort of celebrate with Epstein. So they must have been aware of what was going on.

But they were prepared to do that and introduce their children to a sex offender because they were so in need of his money.

Yes, and I think there were sort of double standards going on because on one side Sarah Ferguson was supporting sex trafficking or against sex trafficking charities rather and a children's writer and at the same time here she was quite happy to mix, to stay at the home of a convicted paedophile. And you know, I just think that there was a certain hypocrisy about the way they behaved, but partly because they wanted money. And I think in the end, they didn't really care. It wasn't something that worried them.

I think Sarah Ferguson must have known a lot of this stuff. There were times when actually Andrew cut short family holidays in order to go to Diddleson James and spend time with Epstein.

So how is Prince Andrew going to manage for money? He's being turfed out of Royal Lodge, which he paid a peppercorn rent for, which was literally two peppercorns, I believe. He's going to live on the Sandringham estate. How does he manage for money?

I don't think Andrew has any problems with money. I mean, he's inherited money from the Queen Mother, I think probably from the Queen. He has made money from various business activities and we know from looking at his accounts that monies were transferred. There was all the business he was doing in China with the alleged Chinese spy Tenbo. We know that he's been doing business in the Middle East, often paid in gifts

rather than money. He doesn't have to pay any rent at all now. I think he's just basically been housed by his brother. He's going to be given an allowance by his brother. He's been given at least £500,000, so $700,000 as part of this repairing lease. I've been told he's actually been paid millions of pounds to move. That was the incentive to go. So I don't think there's any problem about money. This idea that they're poor is

ridiculous. Okay, so how bad is this for the British royal family? We have King Charles who's got cancer. We have Prince William sort of limbering up to take over at some point, though it's unclear when

obviously. How bad is this for them? Well, I think it was very bad until Thursday. I thought I publicly said I think this was the most dangerous moment for them until since the abdication. I think they've seized the initiative since then by being pretty ruthless. They've won a lot of respect for that. William I think understood the problem. I think possibly Camilla and Kate as well. And so I think what they've done is gone down very well with the public who 90% were pretty appalled by Andrew's behavior.

But I think what it's done is it's now raised wider questions, which are questions the royal family don't really want to respond to, which is about royal privilege and accountability. So people are now asking questions about people in grace and favor houses who are not working royals,

whether they're paying market rent or are basically being given pretty cheap accommodation which is what the case with Andrew and we found was repeated repeatedly with other members of the family. So for example the two daughters have flats or cottages at St. James's Palace and Kensington Palace and no one knows because they're not working royals why they should have them.

Those are Andrew and Fergie's daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Yes, sorry. So, the York daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie have accommodation in royal palaces though they're not working roy, and I think people are asking questions about that. There were calls 20 years ago for a royal register, like a parliamentary register, where people would register their business interests, and this is true of some of the people on the periphery of the royal family, people like Zara Phillips, Mike Tindall, Peter Phillips. So these are children of Princess Anne and their husband.

So there's a sense that we need that. We want more Parliament, people are calling for more parliamentary accountability. The rules were that the MPs were never allowed to question anything about the Royal Family. I think people are trying to change that.

They were exempt under the Freedom of Information Act. There are attempts to get those exemptions changed so that they can be asked questions and we also have the question of royal wills which are sealed which would reveal how money is passed down from generation to generation and one can understand that perhaps within the direct line of succession but in many very obscure minor royals are protected. And I think people want a little bit more openness about the two very rich estates that

the Duchy of Cornwall which is run by the Prince of Wales and Duchy of Lancaster which is run by the King. They're making huge sums of money from them and often taking advantage for example charging parking in hospitals which people feel is not really very suitable for them. The way they have their money is called the sovereign grant, and they've been given a percentage of basically the incomes coming in to some of these estates.

But they're making a lot of money, particularly from wind farms on the seabed around Britain because they own the seabed immediately around the perimeter. So people are just feeling they're making a lot of money. We don't know how they're making the money. They're not paying taxes. A lot of these estates. There are a lot of very shady trusts which are paying out money. For example, the sale of Andrew's wedding gift house, Sunninghill Park, which was bought by the son-in-law of the President of Kazakhstan, someone he was doing business with. They paid £3 million over the asking price, even though there'd be no interest in the property for a period of five years. So, there are lots and lots

of questions being asked which the Royal Family would prefer not to have to answer.

So Andrew, a serious question, do you think the British Royal Family actually survives?

Yeah, I think they'll survive, but I think they'll only survive if they adapt. They're very good at doing that. They did that when there was a public outcry after Diana's death that there needed to be more sort of a response to that. So the Queen did a broadcast, the flags were lowered and they got through that crisis. They'll get through this crisis, but I think increasingly there's a sense that they become less and less relevant. The few of them to do the jobs now are with Andrew out of the way, Harry and Meghan out

of the way. So I think we're going to move to this much more slimmed down monarchy, a much more European style, just the direct line of succession. I think we now have got a precedent for people losing their titles. So I suspect Harry, Meghan, Bertrand, Eugenie and all these people will have their titles taken away at some point because they're not working royals.

And I think the focus will be more on good works than on pomp and ceremony. I mean I understand that they're reducing the number of working royals but one of the things that seem to be a statistic which we've talked about on the podcast before is that one in six British people have met a member of the royal family and there's no doubt that if you do meet one of them, especially at an event if they're opening a new factory or they've turned up at some charity event, that people tend to warm towards them. So isn't it a sort of vicious circle that if you have fewer working members of the royal

family, fewer members of the public meet them and there's fewer people to support them?

Well, I think the problem is the cost and people get very concerned about supporting them. If they were all working royalsals then that would be one thing but a lot of them don't want to be working Royals and I mean Princess Anne's children she didn't want to have titles and they had their own careers. I think that'll happen with Prince Edward so we're actually left with not many of them wanting to do the job in the first place and I think

we just have to accept that you know we're not going to meet so many people are going to meet the Royals and a lot of the jobs that they used to do will have to be done by what's called deputy lieutenants who are their representatives in each of the counties. But I think also a recent research has shown that actually the Royals don't necessarily raise more, depending on the role, but they don't necessarily add to the coffers of charities and actually they

can, for example, Andrew and Sarah, be counterproductive. So I think there's a new thinking about the role they play. Well I live by Buckingham Palace and often have to cross St. James's Park when there are events going on and certainly for example the big events like Trooping at the Colour which used to have lots of British people there, my experience is actually filled just with tourists. So there's a sort of curiosity

value about the royal family, but I think most of us kind of see them as a slight irrelevance. So I mean, there's definitely a role there, but I think the younger generation are less interested.

So you think Prince William will be a much more modern European style, possibly bicycling

royal?

Yes, I mean, I think William does want to sort of make it a more low key thing. I mean, he wants to get the balance, particularly now with his family rights. His father and other members of the family are sort of workaholics and everyone respects him for that but it's been very damaging to their own family lives and I think William is very keen to get that balance right for himself and for other members of the family. I don't think he's going to be more open than the others.

I think he's actually more secretive than his father. So the transparency a lot of people are calling for I think may take some time but you know they may adapt the fact is that you know there is pressure on them now to be more transparent and they may just for their own sake survival except they need

to make concessions. Andrew what do you know about Prince Andrew's relationship with Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein because we've also got pictures of them

together. Well Donald Trump claims not to have met Andrew though there's plenty of photographic evidence. I mean they were close they had the same interest in women and golf and making money and they certainly got lots of testimony of them meeting. In fact Andrew was kind of the designated royal for Trump because of the golf interests. And you know Andrew went to Mar-a-Lago, there are pictures of him there with Melania and with Gwendolyn Beck,

who was one of the people supposedly he took to the island.

Andrew was designated to show Trump around when he came on his first state visit.

So the links between them are pretty extensive.

So Andrew, can you take us inside the family dynamics of the decision to strip Prince Andrew of his title? Because we know there's William waiting in the wings.

According to what I've heard and read, the decision to strip Andrew of his titles last week was pretty much driven by William. Charles, but I think Charles had been heckled. He could see the comments in the papers, lots and lots of editorials, including a front page of the New Statesman saying, is this the end of the monarchy? And I think they realized they needed to act. And I think Camilla was probably quite instrumental here she was very instrumental in adding a note to the statement that they were thinking for the victims and that was the most

important thing. They I think realized that the wider questions were being asked and they needed to just to basically seize the story and make it

their own. Was there a sense in which the King was reluctant to? Because there has been this sense that he was trying to, you know, reconcile with Harry by Harry coming over for a visit recently and also trying to sort of, I thought, help Prince Andrew, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Yes, no, I think the King Charles is very sentimental. It's his younger brother. I think he gave an undertaking to the Queen that he would take care of the brother, the runt of the litter as he's called. And so I think he found it very difficult to make these tough decisions. I mean, the narrative that's been spun from Buckingham Palace is it was very much the King's decision. He's been thinking of doing this for a long time. I think people just eventually got both fed up with Andrew and his stubbornness, insistence and staying in Royal Lodge, despite the bad optics,

but also I think they could just say see the way public opinion was going and they were going to be in big trouble. So it's it will be interesting to see how things play out over the next few weeks even, whether people are now satisfied that justice has been served or will look for more and I think that they will be looking for more, that Andrew hasn't really been fully held to account for his actions, he hasn't given a statement explaining everything in his relationship with Epstein and that he is I think

vulnerable to charges being brought against him.

So, Andrew, one of the things that has certainly happened over the last few years is that the British royal correspondence for the tabloids and the broadsheets in the UK have become much more timorous of writing about the royal family. It's one of the reasons that your book entitled got so much attention because you were incredibly robust in your reporting.

Are you noticing a change at all? Yes, I am and I welcome it. So I've noticed that a number of journalists that I thought were very much on side and reliant on the Royal Family for their tip-offs are now much more critical. There's I mean some of the new books that are coming out again are much more questioning of the royals. So this is good. I do feel there is a change of mood and certainly the press have been running some quite hard

hitting investigations. They've been running leaks which I don't think they would have written before. They're criticizing even the king and the Prince of Wales and so this is a complete sea change I think in attitudes which is welcome. I mean I think that you know if they have nothing to hide they should have no problems about having this proper scrutiny. So let me ask you one final

question. Andrew is now going to be referred to as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. There is a certain irony to this because his fall from grace is to do with his connection to Jeffrey Epstein, a sexual predator. But in taking the name Mountbatten, he also has a connection to a predator that you wrote another book about.

Well one of the ironies is one of my previous subjects Lord Mountbatten who was Prince Philip's uncle and has now emerged having had a very distinguished public career as for example the last Viceroy of India. It's been revealed, well revealed in my book, that he was a paedophile. There's actually a case going through the courts in Belfast about a young boy who was trafficked to him from one of the boys homes there. So this is on top of the two witnesses I had and indeed the FBI files I found talking about his paedophilia. So

there is a second paedophile in the family with the same surname now as Andrew who we used to

know as Prince. Good Lord, well William has his work cut out for him when he eventually takes over. Andrew thank you very much for joining us and I'm glad your book is going up the bestseller list again. Thank you yes, it's

gratifying and it's good that in some ways these issues are now being aired which I've been calling for for years and nothing was done so I really It's gratifying and it's good that in some ways these issues are now being aired, which I've been calling for for years and nothing was done. So I really feel confident that there's going to be some change.

Great. Well, Andrew Lowney, thank you very much. And if you haven't read it, Entitled, The Rise and the Fall of the House of York, well, I guess you'll be rapidly coming out with an updated edition of it, won't you?

We will, it's gonna be called Untitled.

Okay, Andrew, thank you very much for joining us.

Thank you.

It's really quite unfathomable the number of men who have lost their entire livelihoods because of their connection to Jeffrey Epstein. And Prince Andrew is just the latest. The question is, who will be next and when will that be? If you have been, thank you for joining us.

Don't forget to leave a comment on this podcast. Please subscribe and subscribe to to The Daily Beast. We are independent media and we really appreciate your support and I think we feel confident to do stories that other people don't dig into quite as much. And if you haven't been this week, be Beast and a shout out to all our Beast tier members of our Daily Beast community where you get tons of interesting

free content and all sorts of access to Daily Beast journalists. So that's Herbie, Andrew Mellor, Sandra Clark, Bonzo, Val of San Francisco, Bocock DC, Karen White, Heidi Riley, Connie Rutherford, Sharon Shipley, and Andrea Hodel. And big shout out to our production team,

Devon Rogerino, Anna Von Ersen, Devon Rogerino, Anna Von Ersen, and our editor, Jessie Millwood.