Lownie, in an article penned for the esteemed Daily Mail, delved into the multifaceted issues surrounding Prince Andrew and the fortress-like veil that surrounds him. The discourse commenced by drawing parallels between the Duke of York and his nephew, Prince Harry, who has unabashedly capitalized on his insights into the inner workings of the Royal Family.
In light of these circumstances, Lownie initiated his narrative with the assertion, "Documents serve as the cornerstone upon which historians construct their narrative of the past, and thanks to the Public Records Act, a plethora of such documents are available at the National Archives to facilitate our scholarly pursuits."
However, there exists a glaring "exception" to this rule, and that is none other than the Royal Family itself. For those unacquainted with the legal intricacies of monarchy, it should be noted that they are granted immunity under the Freedom of Information Act.
According to Mr. Lownie, "Even the most inconsequential references to the Royal Family in historical documents are expunged – in other words, subjected to censorship."
This leads to the public receiving information through "news clippings and disclosures from 'sources.'"
Yet, when it comes to Prince Harry's forthcoming memoir, this rule appears not to apply. "Indeed," he asserts, "it doesn't apply to the members of the royal household themselves, who seem to have the liberty to amass substantial fortunes through the disclosure of the most astonishing revelations, ranging from the intensely personal to the constitutionally enigmatic."
"Members of the Royal Family can either overtly or surreptitiously collaborate with accommodating biographers, and Royal Households can engage in behind-the-scenes maneuvers against one another."
The same biographer further expounded, stating, "I have been assured that the 'confidants' divulging details about Prince Andrew's financial predicament and mental state are both authentic and of royal lineage. Yet, historians remain deprived of access to archives that are a century old."
In his closing remarks, Lownie decried this situation as "an untenable absurdity that warrants rectification if we aspire to preserve an accurate record of our history."
