Where on earth is all this nonsense coming from?
He wasn’t “unsuccessfully prosecuted on charges that he had stolen possessions from the princess’ estate” instead, all charges were dropped mid-trial i.e. the case against him was dimissed without going to a jury.
I have no objection to accurate criticism but the stuff in this thread is just . . . I don’t what, plain wrong. In every single way.
Weird.
He isn’t still wishing he were a tampon, is he? Maybe he wants to be a butt plug instead.
I know what the “allegations” are (and knew about them months ago (yah-boo, sucks to you)), I’m not at all sure what the legal position is if I repeat them, and I don’t want to lose my posting privileges.
BUT, as an aside, I was also told that the POW doesn’t put his own toothpaste on his toothbrush (literally, that’s not a euphemism, it just should be).
So what else do you think his servants do for him?
The allegations, if shown to be true, might well bring down the monarchy; hell, might happen even if they’re shown to be false.
Viva la republic.
TGU, are they the same as in this Australian Newspaper, or is there more to it? If there is, mail me will you? 
jjimm, could be the same, the cite you give isn’t as specific as my “information”.
Cheers TGU, and BTW in case you’re worried, I’ve deleted the mail and not forwarded it to anyone. Have a nice evening!
He never e-stalked me, that’s for sure! He never visited my porn store, even when Sunset Thomas arrived for the grand opening. He never spanked my squirrel but he did tease my ferret. Bastard!
**
There are a lot of theories about what might be revealed with regard to the royal family.
Here is a site that has been getting a lot of traffic with regard to the nothing done by nobody, nowhere, no how etc.
Having to drop the charges halfway through sounds like a pretty unsuccesful prosecution to me.
Maybe it’s unclear because of the language barrier. I’ll try again.
It was a bollocksed prosecution.
Hope that helps.
I don’t know why you’re so hostile. I made it clear I didn’t believe the rumor. Ahem, rumour.
Oh, so you don’t think I’m accurate when I say the rumor (rumour) is about Charles allegedly having sex with Michael Fawcett?
Stay tuned, LC, stay tuned.
Prince Charles has never had to buy a Cadillac Escalade with $5K wheels to prove he was rich.
He has never had to scowl and make gangsign with his hands on camera to show he was a badass.
He has not gone a day in years without fearing his mom would outlive him.
He has not (yet) had to deny he deflowered Britney Spears.
I ate my computer, just to be safe.
And, I had a great evening, thanks.
Anyway, an update, I spoke to my “source” at some length today, and he said that he believed the allegations to be wholly unreliable, and that the allegator was something of a lizard, with added (and well-documented) mental health issues.
I know this is probably just a minor difference between British English and American English, but this phrase made me think you were referring to the, erm, member (and size thereof) in question rather than the person alleging that the alleged incident allegedly happened… 
Me and my dirty mind…
OK, let me make sure I have the status of everything correct:
Some idjit of questionable repute has semi-publicly alleged that he saw the POW in the middle of homosexual sex.
No one really believes it.
However, several people mention this rumor could “bring down the monarchy”.
I just don’t get #3. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, Chuck comes out and Announces to the World he is a Flaming Homosexual. So what? How in the world would this affect the “monarchy” one way or another? At worst, wouldn’t parliament just remove him from the line of succession in favor (excuse me, favour) of his eldest son?
Mind you, personally I think getting rid of the monarchy (and nobility while you’re at it) would be the best thing Britain could do for themselves, but that’s just me. I don’t see how any possible angle of the current “scandal” could realistically have the least possible chance to “bring down the monarchy”.
Well, that’s just my 2p-worth.
If you want a sensible answer to the above its this:
Not only would charles be King of GB but of several other countries too. Also he would be the head of the Church of England/The Anglican communion, which is pulling itself to bits over a gay bishop.
Anyway he’s not gay - he’'s a legendary bird bandit (or at least he was).
We have had at least one gay king before (Edward II)
Charles would hardly be the first flaming homosexual heading the Court of St. James’s. At least two, probably more, have had that honor. Granted, one got “removed” in quite a less civilized way than Parliament might do to Charles…
This has been puzzling me too. It’s more likely to be the allegations detailed by pjen here are the circumstances that could cause damage.
…or if Charlie the boy wonder and the servant were connected…
Ah. It’s all clear now. A guy who may or may not eventually become the king of England (a position which holds no power outside of “being really rich and spoiled”) may or may not have had sex with another man.
And thus, people care about this, because…?
Well, I would like to thank the several posters here for explaining what, precisely, is being talked about.
I, like JC, find the whole reporting of a story that no one can talk about – the love that dare not speak its name! – to be odd in the extreme: “Prince Charles is still under pressure from the brewing scandal of . . . well, we can’t say. He is meeting with his advisors to discuss . . . uh, the thing we can’t say. His sons are apparently also aware of the charge of . . . the thing he was charged with . . . and are said to be fully supportive, denying that he was ever involved in . . . the thing we can’t say. But boy, would we love to say.”
Bizzare! You’d never get that over here. Here, you can’t protect your reputation by gagging the press. You can, however, sue the snot out of the person who libelled you.
And a prosecution that is wholly dropped halfway through trial is by definition a failed prosecution. The prosecutors (whatever term they are given in the UK) got absolutely and publicly pantsed by the Palace in that case, and if they (the prosecutors) are not still furious about it, they ought to be.