Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles 2: July - Nov 2003

[Alexandria]

Polfoto 05-11-2003 The Prince of Wales during his visit to the British run Cheshire home, on the outskirts of the city of Bombay, India.

[Alexandria]

Polfoto 05-11-2003 The Prince of Wales talks with Mr Jockin Arputham (left), the President of the National slum Dwellers Federation, Wednesday November 5, 2003, in the Dharavi slum area on the outskirts of the city of Bombay, India. Charles, who yesterday enjoyed the bright lights of the Bollywood film world, was making the journey to see the city's vast make-shift dwellings.

[Alexandria]

www.ibl.se - Prince goes to Bollywood at the filming of a Bollywood production involving actors Amir Khan and Toby Stevens. 11/04/2003.

[Alexandria]

www.ibl.se - Prince goes to Bollywood at the filming of a Bollywood production involving actors Amir Khan and Toby Stevens. 11/04/2003.

[Alexandria]

www.ibl.se - Prince goes to Bollywood at the filming of a Bollywood production involving actors Amir Khan and Toby Stevens. 11/04/2003.

[Alexandria]

www.ibl.se - The prince meets the city Dabbawallah's (men who deliver lunch "Tiffin" boxes). 11/04/2003. HRH the Prince Charles in Bombay.

[didem]

Camilla is not fit future Queen for UK

[sara1981]

Originally posted by didem@Nov 6th, 2003 - 7:07 am
Camilla is not fit future Queen for UK

i agree with you!

Sara Boyce

[Binny]

Hi!

Just wondering if anyone knows anything about this? I knew nothing about it until I just read this on the Internet...

Prince Charles says he didn't do it

REUTERS[ FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 07, 2003 06:46:06 AM ]

LONDON: In perhaps the most bizarre turn yet for the scandal-plagued royal family, the heir to the throne denied on Thursday being involved in an "incident" that has been hinted at -- but never revealed -- in the country's scandal-mad press.

"I just want to make it entirely clear, even though I can't refer to the specifics of the allegation, that it's totally untrue and without a shred of substance," Charles's private secretary Sir Michael Peat said in televised remarks.

"It is risible. It is totally untrue. Although having said that, even allegations, which are untrue can cause distress, great distress," he said.

The denial was apparently an attempt to kill off the mystery scandal, but it could just fuel public curiosity as to just what on earth it was that the prince says he did not do.

For months, several British newspapers have said Britain's tough libel laws prevent them printing the details of the supposed scandal, but that if the public knew the story it could bring down the monarchy.

[Binny]

It continues -

Michael Fawcett, a former servant of Prince Charles, made use of those laws to win a court order against the Mail on Sunday tabloid this week to prevent it printing a story the paper said concerned "matters of the deepest public interest".

Another newspaper added to the pressure earlier on Thursday by winning the right to publish Fawcett's name.

Until Thursday, the royal family never commented, while speculation and innuendo continued unrelentingly in the media as to just what the story might be.

In its denial, Charles's office filled in some of the holes.

"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," it said in a statement.

"The allegation was that the Prince of Wales was involved in the incident. This allegation is untrue."

The royal family has been battered by scandal for years, most recently over Princess Diana's butler Paul Burrell, whose tell-all memoir appeared last week. Burrell has said he knows a great deal more than he has published so far, tempting tabloids to seek out more skeletons in the royal closets.

Royal biographer Una Mary Parker said the decision by the royal family to come forward and deny the mystery allegation was a change of tack for the embattled palace.

"They have been accused of being like ostriches and putting their heads in the sand," she said.

"But I think if you're going to make a statement you've got to go all the way and make a full statement. Because people are not even sure what the allegations are. It's confusing to the general public."

[Dennism]

I had heard about this on the news. I'm curious what it is. Maybe they saw the Queen doing the tango or something.

[Alexandria]

I am from Canada, so even though we are independent, we are still very much part of Great Britain's colonies and our news covers the British royals closely. I saw a bit of this on my 11 o'clock news last night but for the life of me culdn't figure out what it was about.

The denial was apparently an attempt to kill off the mystery scandal, but it could just fuel public curiosity as to just what on earth it was that the prince says he did not do.

Although I think this was an attempt to head off any harm that might've been caused had Prince Charles' reps not spoken about it first and the tabloids and press had been the ones to break this news, I think it had the opposite effect. With all these vague statements of 'an incident' the public is even more curious than ever. And no doubt the tabloids and other press will be digging for info on what the 'incident' in question is.

Does anyone think that this 'incident' might have anything to do with a previous (one of many! ) that involved one of Prince Charles' aides being raped by another?

[kittencrews]

There is big news that Charles had an affair with one of his personal advisors but the London Times wasn't allowed to publish it. "Accidently" the New York Times did for twenty minutes!!!

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...

[Elliadrill]

The rumor is an old one. It just was never published widely. The rumor, which has been reported here before, was that an aide caught Charles and Fawcett in some sort of sexual liason. Diana has mentioned also that she walked in on Charles and Fawcett and it seemed to her that something was going on with them.

Like I said, the rumor is old, it just wasn't widely circulated. The difference now is that a paper has an "eyewitness" rather than just gossip.

[timtonruben359]

There is so many rumours flying around since for legal reasons the story can't be printed in the UK, even here in North America the media is showing remarkable restraint. BUt all the rumours involve the Prince of Wales invovled in some sort of homosexual activity.

[Lena]

I´m quite sure that the whole copied story will appear or is already appeared anywhere on the net.
But even if it´s true? What´s the problem? If it´s true, it was probably just a "sexual experiment", but I fear that some media will try to make a "Charles couldn´t love Diana, because he´s gay, and Camilia is just a mother-substitute"-story out of it *sigh*

[Alexandria]

There has been a lot of speculation about what the "big incident" involving Prince Charles was exaclty, but I had not idea that it could be something like this! The news teasers were that the incident had the potential to "bring down the monarchy." And also that both William and Harry knew about it and supported their father.

I wonder what the New York Times reporter's sources were on this and how the story could've possibly leaked out.

I don't know much about this, but I am presently under the belief that if Charles et. al., would just say flat out what the incident was, there wouldn't be all these wild conclusions and assumptions being made - which, in my opinion could be just as bad as the incident in question. Depending on what the big incident was, if it's just out in the open it might cause a lot of shock waves at present, but in time it would blow over as every other scandal.

[kittencrews]

Well it was supposed to be printed in the London Times but it was stopped... I have no idea.. there is a little article about it on www.hellomagazine.com

[Jenna1186]

Chas defiant on 'sex scandal'


PRINCE Charles remained defiant yesterday as a Royal “sex lies” scandal spread like wildfire on the internet.

Senior Royal aides said he had “nothing to fear and nothing to hide” as allegations about his involvement with a male servant were published for the first time.

But hours after Charles authorised his top aide to issue a statement denying he was involved in a compromising “incident”, an Italian newspaper printed the damaging claims.

And the story — which was also reported on Italian state TV — was being read on websites and discussed in net chatrooms all over the world.

Yesterday the Prince, 54, refused to answer questions about the story. As he arrived for a reception at the British ambassador’s residence in the Omani capital Muscat, The Sun asked if he had any comment.

The Prince, accompanied by ambassador Stuart Laing, did not react and looked straight ahead.

Royal author Ingrid Seward last night called the Prince’s statement “unprecedented” and said it was probably done to protect his sons.

She said: “There’s a limit to how many things you can say about someone that are really unpleasant and really untrue. These are also very hurtful to William and Harry, that’s what is at the back of this.”

The Italian paper, the top-selling Corriere della Sera, printed the name of the person alleged to have been involved with Charles.

It described the allegations as the “ticking timebomb under the throne”.

It also printed the sex claims strenuously denied by Prince Charles on Thursday in the sensational late-night statement from Clarence House. The Italian paper is not covered by injunctions imposed on British papers after allegations surfaced a week ago.

The Prince took the unusual step of admitting he was the senior member of the Royal Family said to be involved in an alleged incident — details of which have not been made public here.

His statement followed the naming of his former servant Michael Fawcett, 40, who had asked courts to keep his name secret. A second flunkey, George Smith, has been named as the person who made the claims to a newspaper.

Palace staff dismissed Smith as a “liar and alcoholic” who had made other claims found to be untrue.

One top Royal aide said Charles had nothing to fear if the allegation was made public. He said: “We have always said the allegations were nonsense.

“The Prince has nothing to fear. We have told the truth and gone on record as saying the allegations are rubbish. The Prince has nothing to hide.”

Royal sources said it was unlikely the Prince would sue if the allegations were printed in Britain.

Clarence House is anxiously waiting to see if the unprecedented statement by Charles is enough to prevent the allegations becoming widely known here.

The statement read: “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 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 ex-servant had post-traumatic stress disorder and had been an alcoholic after serving in the Falklands.

Charles’s private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, said in a TV interview later: “It is rather unusual to make a statement about an unspecified allegation. However, even though I can’t refer to the specifics of the allegation, it is totally untrue.”

Charles tried to shrug off the scandal on his tour of the Gulf state of Oman.

During a tour of a restored 17th century fort, during which he peered down the barrel of a cannon, he appeared to make a cryptic reference to the intense media attention he is under.

As he walked towards a group of photographers on the castle ramparts, he said: “There is a lot of reflected heat round you.”

Mr Fawcett refused to comment on the scandal when he returned to his home in Hampton, West London, yesterday.

He told newsmen: “I would really appreciate it if you all went home. I will not answer any of your questions.”


From The Sun.