Trial by Media While Courts Are Still Sitting
The Rise and Fall of the House of York by Andrew Lownie presents itself as forensic accountability. In reality, it functions as narrative certainty in the absence of judicial findings.
The book piles allegation upon allegation while sidestepping a central, inconvenient fact: Prince Andrew has never had his day in court. No criminal trial. No evidentiary hearing. No judicial determination. That absence is not treated with restraint, but instead converted into narrative fuel.
More troubling is what the book omits. Issues treated publicly as settled are currently being challenged in live court proceedings — including actions in London (commonly referred to as David v. Kahn and Howard Kennedy) and in the Eastern Caribbean (David v. David Boies). According to filings in those cases, many of the same claims amplified in the book are alleged to be conjectural, fabricated, or propagated through a coordinated media and professional ecosystem now under judicial scrutiny.
None of this appears in the book. There is no serious engagement with the fact that courts are actively examining whether these narratives are true at all. Instead, repetition substitutes for adjudication. Tone replaces proof. Certainty grows even as the underlying claims remain contested before judges.
This is not sober history. It is trial by media, conducted while actual trials addressing the same issues are underway — and ignored.
Not because the subject matter is uncomfortable, but because the book pre-decides outcomes that courts are still testing — and presents that pre-decision as accountability.
Article Visibility
This article is surfacing prominently in search results due to originality, topical relevance, and reader engagement. Its appearance reflects algorithmic aggregation of publicly available editorial content — not endorsement, verification, or adjudication by any platform.