# Prince charles **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 7, 2003, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862 "2003-11-07T11:12:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/1 "2003-11-07T11:12:50Z")
what has he been up to… All the press are saying is that they have a huge story that they can’t tell us & he has denied that the story that we are not allowed to know is true?? Maybe he wants to be the Queen instead of the King… any ideas ---
**Author:** ![brainfizz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/da6949/32.png) [@brainfizz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brainfizz)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/2 "2003-11-07T11:33:40Z")
I saw this on the news last night too… Have no idea what’s going on. Quite an unusual Ten O’clock News last night : “Our main headline today : It has been confirmed that Prince Charles is at the centre of the royal debacle which, under orders from the palace, we can tell you nothing about. Prince Charles has denied any truth in the matter.” - odd! ---
**Author:** ![One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/838e76/32.png) [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/One_And_Only_Wanderers)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/3 "2003-11-07T11:36:28Z")
The current RUMOURS and I emphasize RUMOURS is that he ALLEDGEDLY had an affair with a servant. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/4 "2003-11-07T11:43:47Z")
As far as I can tell, some former servant who cannot be named has revealed something about some member of the Royal Family doing something that can’t be mentioned. Prince Charles has confirmed that he is the person to whom the allegations refer, but has denied the veracity of the allegations. Seems pretty likely the the former servant is going to be Paul Burrell (buy my book, pleeeeeease!). It will turn out to be something rather mundane, I reckon. ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/5 "2003-11-07T11:45:27Z")
Somehow I doubt the mods will leave this thread open. When the entire UK media is keeping shtum I doubt the Chicago Reader will want to risk legal action. The most that has been broadcast in mainstream channels is that the allegation is unrelated to previous allegations about activities at the palace (not involving Charles). ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/6 "2003-11-07T11:54:36Z")
…except that the UK media might actually _know_ something factual, whereas we’re just pulling speculations out of our collective arses. It will all come out in the wash anyway; media gags never seem to be permanent. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/7 "2003-11-07T11:55:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by brainfizz \* > . . . which, under orders from the palace . . . Are you sure that’s what was said ? **Factually speaking** , this might help - no speculation, just reported cites. **Strictly legal:** [NYT, 4th November](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/international/europe/04DIAN.html?ex=1068526800&en=31d96d73ee2a830c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) “On the tape, according to news reports, George Smith, a former royal valet, accuses an unnamed male courtier of raping him and, even more explosively, says he saw a senior member of the royal family and a royal servant engaged in a compromising sexual act.” Followed by: [Prince Charles denies ‘ludicrous’ claims](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3249031.stm): "It said: "In recent days, there have been media reports concerning an allegation that a former Royal Household employee witnessed an incident some years ago involving a senior member of the Royal Family. "The speculation needs to be brought to an end. "The allegation was that the Prince of Wales was involved in the incident. “This allegation is untrue. The incident which the former employee claims to have witnessed did not take place.” The statement said the allegation had been made by a former Royal employee - not Mr Fawcett - “who, unfortunately, has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and has previously suffered from alcoholism following active service in the Falklands”." Probably more comfortable for the Chicago Reader if little more is said, at least at this point. I don’t think it would be a problem _in this particular case_, but that’s easy for me to say. Fwiw, I think this was the right forum as we’re, at this stage, only interested in **published facts**. That was **published facts** 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/8 "2003-11-07T11:56:44Z")
Sorry, make all of that **published information** , it makes more sense . . . ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/9 "2003-11-07T12:02:16Z")
As London\_Calling says, there is already some newpaper reporting to cite. On a BBC TV discussion programme, there was a claim that this and other allegations would, if proven, lead to the collapse of the Monarchy. On a related note, Paul Burrell (Princess Diana’s former butler) has justified his publishing a dramatic book on the Royals (for an advance of around £250,000) by saying that he deeply respects Diana and wants to honour her memory. 😕 :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/10 "2003-11-07T14:24:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > **On a BBC TV discussion programme, there was a claim that this and other allegations would, if proven, lead to the collapse of the Monarchy.** Maybe this is nothing more than proof of my own lack of imagination, but I can’t think of _anything_ he could have done that would have that kind of effect; it’s almost a foregone conclusion that he will be leapfrogged for the throne anyway; ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/11 "2003-11-07T14:40:49Z")
> [@](#): > > When the entire UK media is keeping shtum I doubt the Chicago Reader will want to risk legal action. Um, AFAIK the British “Official Secrets Act” does not apply to citizens of other countries, so the mods can leave this thread open with impunity, and we can all speculate to our heart’s content on the House of Windsor’s latest flap without fear of drawing reprisals from British jackbooted thugs upon the head of either the Chicago _Reader_ or the participants in this thread. Myself, I like the “he’s going to announce that he’d rather be queen” theory. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/12 "2003-11-07T14:46:54Z")
Oh, and, [this](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/11/07/uk.charles/index.html) just came up on [CNN.com](http://CNN.com). > [@](#): > > Palace: Charles claims ‘ludicrous’ > Friday, November 7, 2003 Posted: 9:42 AM EST (1442 GMT) > > LONDON, England – A senior aide to Prince Charles said in a TV interview that allegations claiming the prince was involved in a scandalous incident are “totally ludicrous” but needed to be denied because the claims were becoming so widespread. > > His comment comes after Clarence House, the prince’s official residence, took the highly unusual step of issuing a statement naming Charles as the senior royal at the center of the claims and denying that the alleged incident ever took place. > > The allegations, made by a former royal servant, are the subject of a court injunction preventing any reporting of the claims. > > \< snip \> > > CNN royal analyst Robert Jobson said the unprecedented denial appeared to be a pre-emptive strike in case the allegations, which cannot be reported because of the injunction, were some how made public. > > The palace wanted to get Charles’s denial before any such publication, he said. > > \< snip \> > > On Thursday, an injunction banning The Guardian newspaper from naming former royal aide Michael Fawcett – who is not the former employee referred to by Clarence House – was lifted by agreement after the newspaper said it had no intention of repeating allegations about him. > > The agreement meant that The Guardian could only publish Fawcett’s name in relation to him obtaining an injunction against the Mail on Sunday. > > That injunction remains in place although the Sunday paper later claimed success in “relaxing the constraints” of the gagging order. My money’s on the dirt being all over the Internet by lunchtime. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/13 "2003-11-07T15:09:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > **Um, AFAIK the British “Official Secrets Act” does not apply to citizens of other countries, so the mods can leave this thread open with impunity, and we can all speculate to our heart’s content on the House of Windsor’s latest flap without fear of drawing reprisals from British jackbooted thugs upon the head of either the Chicago _Reader_ or the participants in this thread.d** I’m pretty sure though, that Due to the international nature of the board, the powers that be might (in certain circumstances) consider it unwise to leave threads open that detail activities illegal only outside the USA. Not saying that this is a qualifying thread, but I’m reasonably certain that I’ve heard some statement to this effect before. ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/14 "2003-11-07T15:17:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*Um, AFAIK the British “Official Secrets Act” does not apply to citizens of other countries \*\* Official Secrets Act has nothing to do with it. We’re talking plain old libel laws. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/15 "2003-11-07T15:26:46Z")
> [@](#): > > I doubt the Chicago Reader will want to risk legal action. You must be thinking of British libel law. Under American libel law there is practically no way the Chicago Reader could be held liable on the basis of publishing salacious rumours about Prince Charles. And there is little chance, given recent court decisions, that an American court would enforce such a British judgment. ---
**Author:** ![AngelicGemma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/439d5e/32.png) [@AngelicGemma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AngelicGemma)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/16 "2003-11-07T15:29:05Z")
I’m betting Charles was caught in bed with a male servant. That seems to be the popular belief. ---
**Author:** ![xash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c6cbf5/32.png) [@xash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xash)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-charles/211862/17 "2003-11-07T15:38:14Z")
OP was a returning spammer. Therefore OP banned and thread closed. Nothing to do with the contents of this thread. Just clarifying. - **xash** General Questions Moderator