If there is nothing like it, how can it be like a bunch of old excited hens?
:rolleyes:
I’m betting the incident involved Camilla, although I could see her being mistaken for something other than female. :WOOF:
Well, this thread was closed, but for other reasons
I have it straight from the horse’s mouth that Prince Charles did NOT muck out my horses’ stall sthis morning, or, indeed, any other morning, no matter how far in the past.
My cats have also informed me that Prince Charles has never cleaned their litter boxes, but I would not consider them as reliable a source.
Prince Charles has never had his ears bobbed.
Obviously.
Messieurs Chance and Calling - pistols at dawn, outside this saloon, please. Not in it.
“flapping around”, “try to get a grip”…
There was that rumour that (presumably because Charles had a broken arm) one of his servants held his err… Member of the Royal Family while he provided a urine sample…
Frankie Howerd R.I.P.
Sure, it was all a bit unnecessary. Sorry 'bout that Mr Chance.
And you. Let’s call the whole thing off.
Tomahto.
Nice to see someone got it quickly.
Hey! I’ve never been warned before! Do I get a citation or something? Is there a court date?
AFIAK, Prince Chuck has never posted to the Straight Dope Message Board. Though now be as good a time as any.
Didn’t he almost have it all?
He didn’t have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.
Actually, what Prince Charles didn’t do was he didn’t have sexual contact with Michael Fawcett, one of his closest advisers.
The royal family didn’t waste any time in pointing out that the person making the charge, one George Smith, a former royal servant, had suffered from alcoholism and post-traumatic stress syndrome after the Falklands War. The royal family didn’t have any hesitation about pointing out that Smith has made other claims that didn’t pan out.
The New York Times didn’t print a story by reporter Sarah Lyall naming Michael Fawcett as the person with whom Charles was accused of having the sexual contact.
In case you didn’t read it, the matter came up during the trial of Paul Burrell, butler to Diana, the Princess of Wales. He was unsuccessfully prosecuted on charges that he had stolen possessions from the princess’ estate, including an alleged tape on which George Smith allegedly made the alleged allegation.
He also STILL has not admitted that he and Marilyn Quayle are really the same person !
That’s a bit extreme, don’t you think? Would he really break him arm just so someone would do that?
Hmmm, and my thread was also closed, but I have no idea why. It seemed to have been quite OK in March when I first posted it. And additional posts to the thread didn’t seem to be all that bad.
Does the Royal Family have stock in the SDMB?
Perhaps Brits were complaining? Sorry if I ruffled feathers…it is, after all, a major news story - and I think I am safe in saying the British press will be making more of it than a few catcalls made on the SDMB.
As some still seem to be confused, let me clarify the legal position; it is not “the Royal Family” or even Prince Charles who holds the Injunction against publication. It is the man with whom Prince Charles was alleged – by the “unwell” George Smith – to have had this encounter, Michael Fawcett.
George Smith is suggesting he walked in on them and Fawcett, through the Injunction, is attempting – as is his legal right – to protect his reputation; you know, rights of the individual, and all that.
Got about as much to do with the <hush, hush> Official Secrets Act*<hush, hush> * as my Aunt Fanny – and I’m still trying to work out how a private individual, in his capacity as a private individual, would invoke the OSA. Answer: it’s impossible.
Not just the wrong tree, you’re barking in the wrong forest.
The tape in the media is known as the “rape tape”. Details of the tape’s alleged contents are available at the Daily Mirror website. Somehow I don’t think the Mirror’s allegations alone are enough to bring down the monarchy. So a royal was allegedly caught in bed with another man - big deal. That’s a minor “scandal”, but not that big.
I personally think there’s something else to be revealed. [quite]Asked on TV if the recording could destroy the Royal Family, the former butler hesitated and said: “It’s very personal and very damaging. It’s not very pleasant.”
[/quote]
I also think the palace is handling the whole thing in a very amateurish fashion. Keep an eye on the former servants - it’d be dreadful if one or other of them committed “suicide”.