Prince Charles allegation anyone know what it is? - Page 2

Bugs ****ing Bunny · November 7, 2003, 17:46

Given that his forefathers were a bunch of syphilitic bigamists who fathered a legion of bastards, I'm inclined to agree.

Japher · November 7, 2003, 17:49

Quote:

Given that his forefathers were a bunch of syphilitic bigamists who fathered a legion of bastards, I'm inclined to agree.

You forgot to mention inbred.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · November 7, 2003, 17:50

And "German".

Snotty · November 7, 2003, 17:51

Dont mention the germans!

Tripledoc · November 7, 2003, 17:57

Oh sure. Bring down the monarchy when Tony Blair is in charge. Are you people Satanists or what?

Japher · November 7, 2003, 18:00

[paraphrase]'Given that his forefathers were a bunch of syphilitic, imbred, German bigamists who fathered a legion of bastards, I'm inclined to agree.'[/paraphrase]

What does Tony Blair have to do with this?

Bugs ****ing Bunny · November 7, 2003, 18:18

It's impossible to drag down the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Scum floats.

Tripledoc · November 7, 2003, 18:27

It is clearly the ambition of Tony Blair to bring down the Monarchy and establish a little one-party state. I see a pattern with his castration of the upper house. The sly misinformation in the death of Diana is controlled by someone, as yet unspecified. He was able to bring a nation into war, with the majority of the population against him. He handed Bush false information to discredit him. The only thing that stands between him and total control of the empire is the monarchy.

Shi Huangdi · November 7, 2003, 18:36

Tony Blair for King!

techumseh · November 8, 2003, 05:23

Quote:

Uneasy lies the head...

Leader
Saturday November 8, 2003
The Guardian

Prince Charles and his advisers may not be consistent, but they are at least pragmatic. Within a week of a royal aide securing one of the most draconian newspaper injunctions in recent memory, Clarence House performed a startling u-turn and blurted out to the world the very thing the royal family had been so anxious to keep secret. Or nearly.
The statement rushed out on Thursday night referred coyly to "an incident" involving Prince Charles. It may be deduced from Michael Fawcett's vigorous attempt to gag the Mail on Sunday that the supposed incident involved Mr Fawcett and that it was not, say, a boating accident. The Times - home of the hallowed Court Circular column - has reported that it was a sexual incident. The Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera yesterday published further lurid details. Sir Michael Peat's statement makes it clear to anyone following such matters that the source of the allegations is the troubled former valet, George Smith. In a very short time, we have thus moved from total ignorance to partial enlightenment. This abrupt change of tactics may not have gone far enough towards suppressing a surge in fevered internet traffic, but it is a good deal smarter than blundering around trying to silence the entire British press.

Chemical Ollie · November 8, 2003, 19:29

My Cambridge Certificate of Proficiency in English does not help me to understand the meaning of the article Techumseh posted. Either it's just bullshit, or I'm too drunk to read it properly.

Pekka · November 8, 2003, 19:35

Oh man.. I wonder what the kids has to go because of this.. first their mother goes through tragic accident and dies, then there are paparazzis anyway all the time to take the picture fo them, and hoping they'd be at least underaged drunk (except now impossible), or something, or that some of their friends uses drugs to get ripping stories..

.. then the secret sex relationships of their mother, then this too???? That their dad is a butty boy?
Come on, gives these guys a rest already!

Timexwatch · November 8, 2003, 20:19

Wouldn't this make Charles bi and not just gay (if said runmors were true)?

JohnT · November 8, 2003, 20:36

My money is on incest.

Ned · November 8, 2003, 20:42

Charles will be crowned Queen of England!

"NYT NEWSROOM TURMOIL OVER PRINCE CHARLES GAY RUMOR
Fri Nov 07 2003 16:45:11 ET

**Exclusive**

Top editors at the NEW YORK TIMES panicked and ordered a story killed after London-based reporter Sarah Lyall filed a dispatch alleging rumors of Prince Charles and a sexual affair with one of his closest advisers!

The story appeared on the TIMES's internet website for 20 minutes -- before top editors ordered it immediately removed, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"This should never have been published!" a top newsroom source explained Friday evening.

Lyall reported: "No one would say what the rumor was. Not the British newspapers, which were writing long, innuendo-laced articles about it. Not the television commentators, who were discussing it with acrobatic opacity. Especially not Prince Charles, who seemed to be hoping it would just go away...

"The allegation (although no one has said so publicly) has to do with purported sexual contact between Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, and Michael Fawcett, one of his closest advisers."

Developing...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2n.htm

PLATO · November 8, 2003, 20:44

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
My money is on incest.

with who?

JohnT · November 8, 2003, 21:11

Mum?

Or pedophilia. But it's probably a gay thing, like anybody cares.

alva · November 8, 2003, 21:34

Quote:

My money is on incest.

= story

Quote:

Or pedophilia

= story

Quote:

a gay thing, like anybody cares.

= indeed

NeOmega · November 8, 2003, 23:06

It is so very clear now.

remember his "Oh I want to be your tampon" remark in a letter to his girlfriend? I mean, I can't imagine any heterosexual man making that remark.

Short of gay rape, I think the rumor is he is gay, and had sex with one of his male servants. And as soon as the rumor gets out, the whole world will say "That explains sooo much!"

And the royal family knows how easy it will be for people to see him that way, that's why they are banning the press from even printing it.

alva · November 8, 2003, 23:23

Quote:

I can't imagine any heterosexual man making that remark.

So, what kind of a man would make this remark ?

PLATO · November 9, 2003, 01:48

Quote:

Originally posted by NeOmega
"Oh I want to be your tampon"

All I can say about thatis...Long Live The Queen. (Elizabeth, I mean

)

techumseh · November 9, 2003, 02:14

You could say "The Butler did it.", or "Who did the Butler?"

techumseh · November 9, 2003, 12:51

Here's the goods!

Quote:

The new allegation which threatens "to bring the badly-bruised British monarchy to its knees" is that Prince Charles was also sleeping with Michael Fawcett. The Sun recently ran the story without identifying either man. Royal 'in bed with flunkey'.

Ex-valet George Smith is said to have told Princess Diana he saw a "shocking incident" between the Royal and his servant.

His brother Bryan said Diana taped their conversation — in which George also claimed he was twice raped by the male aide. But the 60-minute recording is missing.

Bryan, 41, said George saw the men in bed when he delivered breakfast one morning.

He said: "George said the Royal and his servant were tucked up under the sheets next to each other.

"George told me there was no physical activity but you don’t have to be a brain surgeon to work out what was going on."

Provost Harrison · November 9, 2003, 13:15

..."to bring the badly-bruised British monarchy to its knees"...

That is an unfortunate turn of phrase

Did it have carpet burns as well?

molly bloom · November 9, 2003, 18:23

There are precedents for these kind of shenanigans.

Prince Edward, Duke of Clarence, Queen Victoria's son, was discovered in a notorious London gay brothel. For the good of the Empire he was sent off to India to avoid scandal.

In the hypocrisy ridden Victorian times it was o.k. to bugger messenger boys, have sex with one of London's legions of underage girl prostitutes and father as many illegitimate children as you liked. Just wasn't all right to be found out.

Plus ca change....

Bugs ****ing Bunny · November 9, 2003, 18:36

We've had two definitely gay kings, and probably at least two more. What's more, the person upon whom many of the King Arthur stories are based was gayer than a bag of gibbons. No sweat.

The Viceroy · November 9, 2003, 18:39

Im not sure how this is supose to bring the royals down though ? Even if he was in bed with a servant .. Some may say unexpected .. some may say , thats explains ...

But why would it bring the monarchy down ?

Starchild · November 9, 2003, 18:57

Damn. And here my hot royal fantasies had William be the gay one.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · November 9, 2003, 18:59

Exposing Charles as gay won't bring down the monarchy. No chance.

It might bring down homosexuality, though.

Verres · November 9, 2003, 19:03