Originally posted by Lysergic
Silly Royals.

This is what happens when people in-breed for thousands of years. After awhile, the bloodline gets thin, the brains grow weak, and before you know it...

You are in gay sex scandals and killing your ex wife to keep her quiet.

At least Prince Henry isn't Charles' biological dad. Isn't he the son of that Admiral who Diana was shacking up with? The red headed guy? James Hewitt?

If I was Henry, I'd split from that castle A.S.A.P.

If I was British and lived in the castle I'd say

You're all bloody mad, and I must get the # out of 'ere. mate.

the truth is slowly coming up. I wonder how this is gonna all end??
Could this be the end of the royal family?

its prince charles personal valet or his ex personal valet as he is now who has taken the injunction out to stop himself being named.this is the man supposedly responsible for the rape on the tape.

hes also responsible for things of the same nature not on the tape which were covered up by a senior royal.

so the story could be either allegation.

Originally posted by infinite
the truth is slowly coming up. I wonder how this is gonna all end??
Could this be the end of the royal family?

at the very least, it will probably force Charles to step down, and William to become next in line for the throne.

Originally posted by John bull 1
Well,Prince Charles has gone public to deny it all.

Do we believe him?

I've been following this story for a few months now.
As stated in the link, the guy who is making the allegations has made several unsubstantiated claims before which have been investigated by the police and found to be false.
Disgruntled ex-employees do things like this all the time.

It is almost impossible to give this story credence at this time. If the person involved were anyone else but Prince Charles this would not even make the papers as the risk of being sued would be far too great. The newspapers can afford to go with this one though. They will make enough money out of the story to pay off any court damages that Charles or his aide might win.
He's in a Catch 22 position.

Bear in mind that the guy who is making this claim is an ex member of one of Britain's top army regiments which fought in the Falklands. He's no wimp. It's very unlikely that a big, hairy assed war veteran could be physically assaulted by someone like Michael Fawcett!!!

"He's in a Catch 22 position"

Sure it wasn't a 69 position?

You seem very keen top exonerate Charley Boy.
Infact you always seem keen to tow the establishment line Leveller.

Actually,A great deal makes more sense if you consider Charles might be gay.

Diana,"It is hard when there are 3 in the relationship."
Of course we all assumed it was Camilla she was talking about.

I don't believe the Royal Family are capable of being honest on this issue.If it had been anybody else then they would of been up for withholding evidence in the expensive Burrell trial.

If the allegation is false then he can sue.But as the future head of the British Judicial system.The Crown.I think he should step aside anyway after using his influence to pervert that system that should treat all equally.

He should go!

Originally posted by John bull 1
"He's in a Catch 22 position"

Sure it wasn't a 69 position?

You seem very keen top exonerate Charley Boy.
Infact you always seem keen to tow the establishment line Leveller.

Actually,A great deal makes more sense if you consider Charles might be gay.

Diana,"It is hard when there are 3 in the relationship."
Of course we all assumed it was Camilla she was talking about.

I don't believe the Royal Family are capable of being honest on this issue.If it had been anybody else then they would of been up for withholding evidence in the expensive Burrell trial.

If the allegation is false then he can sue.But as the future head of the British Judicial system.The Crown.I think he should step aside anyway after using his influence to pervert that system that should treat all equally.

He should go!

Just the sort of anti-establishment bull# I would expect from a narrow minded hate monger like yourself.
Show me some proof and then I'll argue with you. But until that time, all you have are vaccuous and vague allegations from sources which even the media are saying are unreliable.

"He should go?"
On what grounds? On the basis that you have no life, think badly of everyone who is superior to you and because you see a conspiracy around every corner?
Where the # is your proof? Not only do you have none, but all evidence points to any possible misdemeanour being carried out by a member of Charles' staff. Not Charles himself!!!! The man is a gay rapist simply because you don't like him. I would say that makes you a bigot.

"The Crown could sue"? Talk responsibily and within the realms of reality. The Crown does not sue over such matters as it has always been above such innuendo. Innuendo that ignoramuses like yourself purport to be truth and then spread around to gain credence for some sick agenda.

"3 in a relationship"? You somehow assume that Charles might be gay from this statement? Yet he has courted and dated more women than most other men? Since when does the fact that he committed adultery make him gay? Just how the # do you jump to the conclusion that because his wife said he was seeing somebody else it must be another man? If a personal male friend of your divorces, do you automatically assume him to be a homosexual, JB?
Me, "tow the party line"? No. I'm just not a narrow minded fool like some.

Charles is one sick imbred bastard.
wanting to be reincarted as camillia's tampon...

If youre gonna get rid of the royal family, can you please exile prince William to seattle please? I wouldnt mind raping him...............

You can keep the rest of em, or send em off to Iraq or Timbuktu....I dont care!

It doesnt surprise me that Leveller would support the Royal family on this #....... he is, after all, and agent of the NWO, and the NWO/Illuminati are all bluebloods.....

But, this sort of depravity is a product of both inbreeding and unbridled power and wealth making a person or family of people sick, demented, jaded, and into some freaky #.

Like our leaders....................look at Gary Condit, Bill Clinton, JFK...........

Skadi - I doubt even a scandal of this nature would prompt the British people to "get rid" of our monarchy. You actually only had to live here during the week following Princess Diana's death to see the the great affection this country has for the monarchy. I agree Diana was a catalyst for a great deal of change for them and that the Royals handled the event very badly but non the less there were millions of people on the streets.

Move on a couple of years and the death of the Queen Mother - again people qued for hours to pay their respects - it was as if the Royals had learnt a lesson in PR. They did what the people wanted and allowed the people close - in fact the only fly in the soup was the behaviour of our erstwile PM Mr Blair who misjudged the mood.

We have had our monarchy for a long time - please dont forget that we were the first country to behead a monarch - long before the french. When we reestablished them we did so with a great many checks and balances in place - and today they really are only a Titular Monarchy - that is rule in name only. So really all something like this does is give the current holders a bad reputation - and we know William and Harry are there to assume the reigns once the "old guard" has moved on.

That the monarchy is having to come to terms with the changing society it exists within is beyond doubt. However as much as Charles is reviled by the tabloid press for this latest mess up - the press remember was the very vehicle that hounded Diana to her death - and had itself to take a very close look at how its public - and paymasters viewed it after her demise.

The support for the monarchy in the UK is actually not determined by the hacks in Wapping or a few disgruntled ex employees wishing to make a fast buck. Its based upon millions of householders who are proud that this institution exists. These are the very people who vote for the only insitution that could abolish the monarchy - Parliament. With a few notable exceptions no MP is going to risk the wrath of - and i apologise if this sounds sexist - its not - its the demographics - middle aged Women for whom the commings and goings of the Royals is their life blood.

Well, still Silk, if you ever feel like beheading Prince William, please dont, exile him here.......

Anyway, I highly dount as well this will be the end. There have been WEAY worse scandals. Just look at the would be King Edward who abdicated so he could marry that American Bimbo. Wasnt he also doing a little collaberating with the Nazis too? That would be far worse than a gay rape case involving servants.

Anway, the economy needs the royals, without them, there would be thousands of Tabloid reporters without jobs!

Skadi - sorry to dissapoint you - I think William has a few English girls who would more than happy to smuggle him from the tower on the eve of such an event ;-)

And yes the abdication crises was actually far more important than this storm in a bath tub (pun intended)

Well, I still say hed be safer as a ward of the elf .

After all, he is proof that the bloodlines are slowly getting cleaned out. Once you started getting rid of all that ugly Kraut blood in the royal lines, youll eventually end up with less Charles and more Williams........

Regardless, however, I can udnerstand why some people might still like having the monarchy, I suppose it makes you special, but in the long run, is the cost of maintaining it really worth the rewards of having it? Are the younger generations as enamored with it as the older ones? After all,t ehya re next in line to take over......

Here's a journos take on our take on Prince Charles's take on kitchen date rape.

I kind of agree with most of this. Except we are devoid of facts, to a large extent.



Gossipers Beat Royal Muzzle On Web
08/11/2003
Bernhard Warner

The press may be banned from revealing the details of the latest royal family scandal, but it hasn't stopped gossip-mongering Internet users from weighing in with their two cents.

Web sites that sprung to life covering every twist and turn of the royal family have been flooded in the past week by scandal-hungry newshounds looking for details they cannot get in the newspapers or on television.

Alternative news Web sites, Internet news groups and discussion boards have once again become a favoured source for details on Michael Fawcett, the former royal servant who sued to stop a paper printing the allegations.

Because of legal pressures and Britain's notoriously iron-clad libel laws, the established media is steering clear of reporting what the actual allegations are. But on the Web, for now, such concerns don't apply.

Even while The Guardian fought a legal battle this week to reveal Fawcett's name, his identity began to appear on a handful of Web sites and in online newsgroup discussion forums.

Legal experts questioned the practicality of silencing news outlets when the identity had already been revealed online.

Mark Prinsley, a partner in the Intellectual Property & IT Group at law firm Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw said such Internet revelations are quickly eroding the ability to keep information of general public interest confidential.

"Ultimately, there's a kind of snowball effect where confidential information becomes too widely known and it becomes futile to continue with injunctions to preserve confidentiality," Prinsley said.

In late September, some small-fry Web sites and discussion groups gave explicit details of a case in which professional footballers were alleged to have attacked a teenage girl. All allusions to the footballers were removed within days, though, as the sites feared being sued for violating defamation laws.

The Fawcett case is more problematic for the courts, said John Derek Tulloch, chair of the department of journalism at the University of Westminster.

The legal argument for restraining the publication of even basic details of a story become largely irrelevant in the Internet era, he said.

"The simplest way to undermine an injunction of this kind is to make it available to another publication. It used to be done all the time by alerting the international press corps," said Tulloch.

"This is good news for those who believe in free expression," said Tulloch. The downside, he added, is for those who want their privacy preserved.

Why does Camielia look like David Bowie?

Did he get a sex change operation? havent seen him around in years...is this really him?

Its funny how people staright away jump to all sorts of conclusions ...just for some gossip.....yes it happens and many times I should add!!!

Whatever the case may be is certainly no bodies buisness .....you mean to say that just because he is Prince Charles he isn't human?

All people make mistakes ....And I'm not saying that this story is about Charles making a mistake!

Well, that's it........I just think that many people including myself at times...jump to conclusions and make all kinds of accusations towards things that realy are none of our buisness and make believe that we are better then the next person....
hmmmm OK.....
helen...