Prince Charles A Queen?

In My Humble Opinion
1

OK - so the title of the thread is a bit “National Enquirer”, but according to the following news link, the rumor of Prince Charles having a gay relationship seems to be hitting the press.

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6137531%5E13780,00.html

"Charles, aide ‘in relationship’
March 17, 2003

THE private life of Prince Charles is unravelling fast as details of secret video tapes made by Princess Diana allegedly put the heir to the throne in an “unhealthy relationship” with his closest aide, Michael Fawcett.

Mr Fawcett resigned last week as the Peat report into Charles’s household was published. Sir Michael Peat’s 100-page dossier devoted 50 pages to an alleged male rape within St James’s Palace, Charles’s London home.

Yesterday the Sunday Mirror led its front page with the story of the secret Diana tapes – a story that has been widely known in newsrooms in Britain and hinted at continually.

On Saturday the Guardian said 16 videotapes made by Diana included “aspects of her and Charles’s sex lives”.

The Sunday Mirror, quoting a source claiming to have seen the tapes, said a tearful and drawn Diana complained to the camera: “He is too close to Fawcett. What can one do when one’s husband is in an unhealthy relationship with his butler?”

The tapes are potentially explosive, especially since it has been widely reported that “a senior member of the royal family” was involved in the homosexual rape of a then-footman, Mr George Smith.

He is believed to have gone to Diana with his story and the mahogany box is said to contain the audio tape she made of his claims. The 16 videotapes are separate, the reports said.

The Sunday Mirror quotes Diana, on videotape, saying Charles and Fawcett appeared “uncomfortable” and “uneasy” after being disturbed together in a room.

The Daily Telegraph"
My guess is that The Daily Telegraph" is not exactly known for being hard news, but I don’t know.

Has anyone heard other reports, from more reliable news sources?

2

I think someone drew the wrong conclusion when they saw Charles with Camilla Parker-Bowles on an especially bad day.

3

They might draw that conclusion on a good day.

4

I don’t know how much truth there is in the allegations (and don’t much care), but your assumption about the veracity of the Daily Telegraph as a source is incorrect. I wouldn’t rely too heavily on the tabloid Sunday Mirror but both the Guardian (which is also mentioned there) and the Telegraph are reputable papers.

5

Camilla is a woman?

6

I might be wrong, but I think it’s the Australian Daily Telegraph that’s being mentioned. It’s a tabloid and doesn’t have the best reputation as an objective, accurate news source in the country (although far short of our illustrious tabloid standards).

7

I stand corrected then. A quick search on the (London) Daily Telegraph site doesn’t find the story.

8

Well, if he is (which I doubt, but what do I know), he wouldn’t be the first. Historians generally agree that Richard I, Edward II, and James I were all, shall we say, more queenly than otherwise.

See the Monarchs of Britain section of www.britannia.com for details.

9

Buttler?

10

This is a conflation of two rumours (well actually one rumour and one truth).

Whilst married to that mad bint Diana, Charles did have at least one affair. THis we know to be true.

However part of the whispreing campaign about the Peat enquiry is the cover up of a homosexual relationship between one of the Royal family and a staff member.

The royal concerned is not Charles, and the veracity of the rumour is extremely questionable.

I am not about to put the actual rumour on a left-dominated message board, but you could probably work it out if you know anything about the Royal family.

There’s a much better one that suprisingly has remained quiet.

11

oh, please do tell, owl. I’ve always had my doubts about Edward. Is it him?

12

From the Royal Canadian Air Farce “English as a Second Language News”:

“And two surprising developments today: One, Prince Edward is getting married. Two, to a woman!”

13

“Left-dominated”?

14

With friends like you the royals hardly need enemies. Having claimed there was no truth in the original rumour you couldn’t let it rest there.

In what way is your other story a “much better” one? More scandalous perhaps? More salacious? More damaging if it got out? Having implied all that to people here who might be interested in tittle tattle about the Windsors, what possible reason can there be to conceal the details? Do you imagine “the left” to be homophobes? Or is it just that you couldn’t resist the infantile boast that you know something they don’t know and they’ll just have to guess what it is? Are you seven years old?

You should either put up or shut up.

15

He’s talking about Prince Edward, the Earl of Wessex, I believe.

yawn

“left-dominated” my rosie red arse.

16

It’s the standard salacious and malicious gossip, virtually impossible to prove either way, that people get away with spreading because the Royal Family almost never sue … their ambiguous position vis-a-vis the courts (which we’ve debated inconclusively here in the past) means that they are reluctant to enter them … ironically giving our supposed lords and masters less effective protection than common oiks like me.

“Left-dominated” indeed. Pfui. Hordes of right-wingers here, some of them even intelligent.

17

It is full of lefties. Honest I’ve seen 'em.

And suprisingly it isn’t Edward (which is the obvious choice - he is known to have “dabbled” - the whole “dockland Doris” story). It’s Andrew. A long time ago. The story has been doing the media chattering classes rounds for years. How true? No idea, but if he was prepared to scuttle Fergie he ain’t that fussy where he puts it.

And the other rumour is that Sophie bats for both teams - again no idea as to veracity. I’ve never had her, nor has my wife. We’d remember.

18

I was going to post “anyone who has been into musical theatre for about 12 minutes knows of whom you speak.” But others have already named Edward, who worked for Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Really Useful Group and from all accounts had a lovely time with Cameron MacIntosh.

19

33,000+ registered members and you’ve seen them? Right.

In what way is any of this bullshit “better” than any other bullshit about the Windsors?

20

look it’s not my fault that the rumour is unexciting is it?

You want better? Spend all day on popbitch – they make up a much better class of rumour - usually about the Beckhams.

And yeah - I’ve Seen 'em. Felt 'em too.