Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles News 2: July-November 2003

[Jenna1186]

Decent Charles nails lies


By ARTHUR EDWARDS
Sun Royal Photographer

I HAVE worked closely with Prince Charles for 30 years and one thing I know, more than anything: he is a decent and honourable man.

His decision to fight back against these scurrilous accusations from a former servant shows he reached the end of his tether.

No more is it “never complain and never explain”, the watchword of the Royal Family for decades. The Prince is determined to nail the lies once and for all.

He has followed the example set by Prince William and Prince Harry when they lashed out at former butler Paul Burrell’s insensitive book about their mother.

You would never know Prince Charles was concerned about the lies by George Smith because he knows in his heart he has done everything to help this man recover from his illnesses.

And how does Smith repay this kindness? By trying to drag the good name of our future King through the gutter.

This week Charles has toured India and encouraged British business in Oman. He has thrown himself into his work, and everybody he meets is totally charmed by this compassionate Prince.

So who should we believe over these allegations? This Judas of a servant has sold his story for 30 pieces of silver and betrayed a man who showed him nothing but goodness.

If these allegations are made known in Britain the public will see how ludicrous they really are.

I have no doubt people will have enormous sympathy for Charles. They know he could never have become so depraved.

By coming out from his corner fighting, Prince Charles is determined that anybody that hurts him or his family will suffer the consequences.

I applaud the Prince’s stand in this matter. Recently a former private secretary described Prince Charles as a “weak man”. How very, very wrong he was.

Beneath this kind and generous man, there is a prince of steel.

Keep fighting Prince Charlie — truth will always win out.

From The Sun.

 

[Alexandria]

Thank you for posting all these stories Jenna1186. The Yes/No debeate was most interesting.

I'm glad that if these stories go public Prince Charles would sue, but it makes me wonder if by sueing and most likely having to testify regarding the incident, he wouldn't bring up more stuff about the royal family?

 

[hrhcp]

A couple of comments:

1. Charles sure knows how/when it is time to go on trips overseas, when trouble is about to "boil over" at home. So, there's a timing issue here.

2. For as long as I can remember, there always seems to be a scandal every so often with the British RF ... and I wonder why ?

3. It would be too bad if the repercussions of this were that Charles would stand down without ever taking the place of his mother, and if William were to do the same.

 

[hrhcp]

It must be 'serious' for it to get mentioned in Canada's best newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../BNStory/Front/

Charles faces storm over sex scandal

By ALAN FREEMAN
From Saturday's Globe and Mail

London — It threatens to be the most sensational scandal ever to hit the Royal Family.

Rumours swirled across Britain Friday about what exactly prompted Prince Charles's entourage to deny in the most categorical terms allegations that remain secret, sealed by a court injunction.

Yet details of the allegations, which concern a sexual incident purportedly witnessed by a former Royal employee involving the Prince, have already begun to slide their way into the Internet and into the pages of at least one foreign newspaper and may yet appear in Britain's gossip-hungry tabloids this weekend.

In an extraordinary intervention, Sir Michael Peat, Charles's private secretary, went on television to declare that the allegation involving the Prince of Wales is "untrue. The incident which the former employee claims to have witnessed did not take place."

"Anyone who knows the Prince of Wales at all would appreciate that the allegation is totally ludicrous, and indeed, risible."

In an effort to discredit the Prince's accuser, Sir Michael said that the person who made the allegations "has suffered health problems and has made other unrelated allegations which have been investigated by the police and found to be unsubstantiated."

He added that the former employee had suffered from alcoholism and post-traumatic stress disorder after serving in the forces in the Falkland Islands.

It's believed the allegation was made by a former footman, George Smith, who separately alleged that that an aide to Prince Charles sexually attacked him in 1989. Police investigated that case but said that Mr. Smith chose not to pursue his claim and it was later dropped.

Mr. Smith is also believed to have witnessed a sex act involving a "senior Royal."

The allegation against the Prince has the potential to be explosive because of Charles's role as heir to the throne and future king of Canada as well as his eventual role as an important religious figure. The sovereign is also Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Charles's defenders said it was essential to issue the denial before details of the allegation became widely known. But his critics said the strategy could backfire and make things worse.

"This is one of the most unpleasant allegations that could be made and it's because it is so particularly vile that his office has decided that enough is enough," Charles' biographer, Penny Junor, said.

"This allegation has been waiting in the wings for well over a year," she continued. "There have been all sorts of innuendos. ...I think that rather than be caught on the back foot and try to deny something after the event, it's not at all a bad strategy to come out and say unequivocally that this is not true and to kill it."

"Given the same scenario, I would have maintained a dignified silence," said Dickie Arbiter, the Queen's former press secretary. "This should be nothing to do with them."

"As a public-relations damage-control exercise, it's pathetic," publicist Max Clifford said. "You've taken something a few people are aware of and turned it into something that the whole country wants to know about."

Mr. Clifford, who frequently acts as an intermediary for people with salacious stories to sells to the tabloids, said the Royal Family would have been better off waiting before denying the allegation.

He said that efforts by the Royal Family to suppress these kinds of damaging stories have become much more difficult since the recent publication by Paul Burrell, the former royal butler, of his tell-all memoir about the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

"Here is a royal servant who has kissed and told and is seen to be able to do that and make hundreds of thousands of pounds out of what he saw," Mr. Clifford said. The temptation will now be even greater for other current and former poorly paid royal servants to come forward and sell their stories.

The Mail on Sunday was preparing to publish the story last weekend when an injunction was granted barring publication. On Thursday, The Guardian newspaper won a ruling from the High Court to name Michael Fawcett, the Prince's former valet, as the person who attempted to stop publication of the story.

Mr. Fawcett resigned from his job earlier this year after an internal palace inquiry found that he was involved in the sale of unwanted royal gifts.

He would not comment on the allegations Friday.

Prince Charles continued a royal tour of the Persian Gulf state of Oman Friday. "I knew you'd be here," he told a photographer who was covering his visit to a fort outside the city of Muscat. "I can't do without you."

A spokesman said that Charles, who turns 55 on Nov. 14, was in "a very positive frame of mind" and was not going to be distracted by what was happening in Britain.

 

[zhontella]

Finally, the chickens are coming home to roost. It's about time.

 

[milocon]

Hi from the U.K. This story is all over the press here though with no details being published due to legal constraints. Some details have, however, been published in Italian papers La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera. Details can also be found on Google newsgroup alt.gossip.royalty. Basically, a royal servant allegedly walked in on Prince Charles and his valet Michael Fawcett in bed together, and it was, allegedly, apparent that they had been engaged in sex acts of a homosexual nature. Like many, I say so what. However, if Charles were to become King then he also becomes Head of the Church of England and it will be difficult for the Church to condone such actions. Additionally, Michael Fawcett has been named as the royal servant at the centre of rape allegations made by George Smith. When this came out Prince Charles paid off both George Smith and Michael Fawcett (although Michael still works for him in an unofficial capacity as a party fixer) and the investigations came to nothing. Many claim that Prince Charles colluded in a cover up of these rape allegations and, as such, would be unacceptable to many members of the British public should he come to sit on the throne.

 

[zhontella]

Originally posted by King Christian@Nov 8th, 2003 - 5:49 am
3. It would be too bad if the repercussions of this were that Charles would stand down without ever taking the place of his mother, and if William were to do the same.

That's possible, and then we'd have King Harry. That wouldn't be so bad. He at least had some good mothering, so that increases his potential for being a worthwhile monarch.

 

[sara1981]

Originally posted by zhontella+Nov 8th, 2003 - 11:21 am--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (zhontella @ Nov 8th, 2003 - 11:21 am)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-King Christian@Nov 8th, 2003 - 5:49 am
3. It would be too bad if the repercussions of this were that Charles would stand down without ever taking the place of his mother, and if William were to do the same.

That's possible, and then we'd have King Harry. That wouldn't be so bad. He at least had some good mothering, so that increases his potential for being a worthwhile monarch. [/b][/quote]
NO!

mostly people wanted William for King! after his dad because generation close like his grandmother the Queen 2 and dad i never heard that Harry would given King! he is third in line! because William is second in line!

Sara Boyce

 

[hrhcp]

sara1981  Posted: Nov 8th, 2003 - 11:24 am

NO!

Exactement Sara.
The howls of protest with Charles now, would become sighs of relief after him standing down, and dead silence with William withdrawing.

 

[zhontella]

If Charles is gay, then I don't see how that could bring down the monarchy. Many suspect Prince Albert is gay, but nobody has suggested he give up his succession as a result.

I'm starting to think these gay rumors are merely another smoke screen. I mean, afterall, how could the Prince of Tamponia possibly be gay?

 

[kittencrews]

Originally posted by zhontella@Nov 8th, 2003 - 11:47 am
I'm starting to think these gay rumors are merely another smoke screen. I mean, afterall, how could the Prince of Tamponia possibly be gay?

That's the first thing that popped into my head... "what about the tampon tape?!?!?!" They used to fear Edward... now... Charles

 

[zhontella]

Originally posted by sara1981@Nov 8th, 2003 - 8:24 am

NO!

Would you still try to insist that William become king even if he absolutely did not want to be?

I think good King Harry has a nice ring to it, and besides his mother thought he was more suited to public life than William.

 

[sara1981]

Originally posted by zhontella+Nov 8th, 2003 - 11:55 am--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (zhontella @ Nov 8th, 2003 - 11:55 am)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sara1981@Nov 8th, 2003 - 8:24 am

NO!

Would you still try to insist that William become king even if he absolutely did not want to be?

I think good King Harry has a nice ring to it, and besides his mother thought he was more suited to public life than William. [/b][/quote]
i mean someone wanted Harry given to become King i dont think so! i wanted Wills to become King mostly people wanted Wills to become King after his dad because its so generation!

Sara Boyce

 

[hrhcp]

It looks to me like a grudge by an ex-employee, who got caught taking money for stealing goods.

 

[Lena]

Well, have you never heard of bisexuality?? One thing, which amaze me more is, that the british Royals have such servants, who don´t know a bit of loyalty. When we´ve heard of scandals in other Royal houses, then it was always a "friend" or relative, who went to the press, but never an employee. The british Royal court should really think about higher salaries!

 

[kittencrews]

Yes, yes, I've heard of a bisexual but still... after all that mess about Camilla... I mean come on...

 

[kittencrews]

Article from Hello Magazine

7 NOVEMBER 2003
In a startling move, the Prince of Wales' private secretary Sir Michael Peat has appeared live on TV to deny allegations that Charles was involved in a serious incident involving a former royal servant.

In the statement, broadcast Thursday evening, Sir Michael Peat said: "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."

Details of the exact nature of the allegations cannot be published for legal reasons.

Prince Charles, who was visiting Oman at the time of Sir Michael's broadcast, had apparently authorised the move hours after his former valet, Michael Fawcett, was revealed as the person who had twice tried to prevent newspapers naming him.

"There is particular sadness about this allegation," continued Sir Michael, "because it was made by a former Royal Household employee who, unfortunately, has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and has previously suffered from alcoholism and following active service in the Falklands."

"He has made other unrelated allegations which the police have fully investigated and found to be unsubstantiated."

Agreeing with TV interviewer Tom Bradby that it was rather unusual to make a statement about an unspecified allegation, Sir Michael said that its timing was in response to "a lot of gossip", "innuendo" and "speculation". "I thought it might be helpful if I made it entirely clear that it is untrue."

Some commentators point out, however, that rather than limiting any damage, the intervention is likely to increase speculation about the incident and those involved in it.

Touring a historic fort in Oman on Friday morning, the Price appeared to be taking the situation in his stride, joking to photographers who were about to take his picture, "There's a lot of reflected heat around here."

 

[hrhcp]

All I'm saying, is that ifWilliam made the decision I suggested earlier (to not rule), the critics would be "silenced once and for all".

There would be I think, tremendous catastrophe to
- the media
- government
- the Royal Family
- the economy
- representation as Head of State in Canada, Austtralia and New Zealand
- the mood of the people

And knock on effect .....

 

[kittencrews]

I agree... everything would go CRAZY... especially since William's generation is such a fan of him...

 

[hrhcp]

him?

 

[kittencrews]

Originally posted by King Christian@Nov 8th, 2003 - 12:48 pm
him?

... William... at least for the most part they sound like it

 

[Alexandria]

Originally posted by zhontella@Nov 8th, 2003 - 11:21 am
That's possible, and then we'd have King Harry. That wouldn't be so bad. He at least had some good mothering, so that increases his potential for being a worthwhile monarch.

I think there might be some reservations about Harry stepping up and taking Charles and William's place. To me it doesn't seem like such a big deal, but I'm sure some more conservative members of the government and Great Britain in general would have some issues or concerns with frequent reports of Harry's "party boy" reputation, his drinking and pot smoking.

Harry would certainly make for a "fun" and easy going king, but I don't know that he is as quite up for the task. And William, afterall, has been reared from his very birth to be the king and he is seen by many as the one who will "save the monarchy" - whatever that means and entails.

And I think that if - the biggest if possible! - Charles were forced to step aside as a result of the fallout from this scandal, William would not be discouraged to step aside, too. But quite the opposite, he would be encouraged to the sky and back to give up his present life and whatever personal freedoms he might have at the moment and take to the throne and live up to his duties and obligations of birth.

 

[Dennism]

No, I want Charles as the king.

 

[Binny]

I don't have a problem with Charles being gay or bisexual - but I think what it does show, is that he continually shows very bad judgement.

 

[hrhcp]

Dennism  Posted: Nov 8th, 2003 - 5:14 pm
No, I want Charles as the king.

Me too !!!!!

 

[hrhcp]

Binny  Posted: Nov 8th, 2003 - 5:24 pm

.. he continually shows very bad judgement.

I think that's a bit harsh.

The ongoing difficulties illustrate to me, that
- The British RF imo is the one family that by tradition? is having the hardest time evolving into a modern monarchy.
- there is a plot ongoing to discredit Prince Charles.
- that about says it all.

 

[kittencrews]

I want Charles as king too... I was saying Wills vs. Harry...

 

[zhontella]

Originally posted by Alexandria@Nov 8th, 2003 - 11:07 am
I'm sure some more conservative members of the government and Great Britain in general would have some issues or concerns with frequent reports of Harry's "party boy" reputation, his drinking and pot smoking.

Considering Harry's age, I don't think these reports carry much weight. Also suspect is that his so-called drinking and pot-smoking were exaggerated so as to "showcase" Prince Charles as a parent.

 

[hrhcp]

Besides ... Harry's going into the Army. Its reported that the Army is keen to have him.

That tells me, Harry has backbone and plenty of it. Tough too.

 

[Elliadrill]

Honestly, I don't think this family is having a hard time living in the modern world. I think everyone else is just asking questions that they used to be too polite to ask in public.

Its all about rights and responsibilites. Yes, the people have a RIGHT to know about the Royal family, but they also used to have a responsibility to demand information only when it is vitally important. There is no pressing, legitimate, national interest in Charles' former sexual liasons(if any). He has done his duty and produced two heirs. As he is unlikely to father MORE heirs, his sexual history is irrelevant.

People have a right to know, but it doesn't make it any less tacky to ask...