What evidence does Andrew Lownie present in his biography linking palace concerns about Meghan Markle to Prince Andrew?
Executive summary
Andrew Lownie’s unauthorized biography of Prince Andrew, Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York, argues that Buckingham Palace’s nervousness about a 2021 bullying probe into Meghan Markle was in part driven by the risk that releasing the report would expose long‑running complaints about Prince Andrew’s behaviour toward staff; Lownie frames this as a defensive palace calculus rather than direct evidence of wrongdoing by Meghan [1] [2]. His linkage rests on reported palace reactions, anonymous or off‑the‑record testimony about Andrew’s treatment of aides, contemporaneous anecdotes (including alleged comments and a 2013 family confrontation) and the author’s broader portrait of Andrew as prone to bullying and “impossible demands” [3] [2] [4].
1. What Lownie actually says about the palace reaction
Lownie writes that when allegations of Meghan’s bullying emerged in 2021, “Buckingham Palace braced itself for historic complaints about Prince Andrew’s bullying, profanities and impossible demands,” and suggests some insiders argue the bullying report into Meghan was never publicly released because it would have also implicated Andrew [1] [2]. Those lines appear in extracts serialised in the Daily Mail and have been quoted widely in coverage of the book [1] [5]. Lownie presents this as palace anxiety—an institutional fear of opening multiple lines of inquiry—not as a documented cover‑up supported by palace records in the public domain [1] [2].
2. The supporting elements Lownie deploys
To build the case that palace concern focused beyond Meghan, Lownie draws on his multi‑year research: HarperCollins says he interviewed more than 100 people and filed numerous Freedom of Information requests while researching the book [5] [3]. He pairs the palace‑bracing quotation with longer portrayals of Andrew as short‑tempered, “cruel” to staff, and someone whose conduct had prompted complaints—assertions presented as findings from interviews and archival work in the biography [3] [5]. Those character sketches are the connective tissue Lownie uses to imply why palace officials would hesitate to release a report that might invite scrutiny of the duke.
3. Specific anecdotes Lownie uses to tighten the link
Lownie cites episodes he says illustrate Andrew’s alleged behaviour and his attitude toward Meghan: the book claims Andrew told his nephew that Meghan was an “opportunist” and that the marriage “would not last more than a month,” and recounts a 2013 family altercation that Lownie says became physical, leaving Andrew with a bloody nose after a fight with Prince Harry [4] [2]. Those episodes are included in serialised extracts and have been reported by multiple outlets as evidence of personal antipathy and abrasive conduct that, in Lownie’s argument, fed palace unease about broader staff complaints [6] [7].
4. Pushback, denials and limitations in the reporting
Key counter‑claims undermine Lownie’s more explosive lines: Meghan has denied the bullying allegations referenced in the 2021 probe, and Prince Harry’s team has denied that he ever had a physical fight with Andrew or that Andrew made the quoted comments about Meghan—positions publicised in responses to the book’s extracts [2] [4] [6]. The assertions tying palace reluctance to cover‑up rely heavily on anonymous or unattributed sources in the biography and on interpretation rather than on release of internal palace documents; reporting notes the book is unauthorized and that Andrew’s representatives were contacted for comment [1] [5].
5. How persuasive is the linkage, and what remains unproven
Lownie’s case is persuasive as a narrative: documented interviews, long research, and a catalogue of allegations about Andrew’s treatment of staff make it plausible palace officials feared a cascade of complaints if the Meghan probe were published [5] [3]. What remains unproven in the public record is a direct, documented causation—that a palace decision not to publish (if such a decision exists) was explicitly taken to shield Andrew; that claim rests on Lownie’s sourcing and on palace insiders’ characterisations rather than on released memos or an official palace admission [1] [2]. Readers should weigh Lownie’s historian credentials and reported access against the book’s unauthorized status and the denials from the parties implicated [8] [4].