Prince Charles involved in Gay rape allegation?

Dude if I was royalty I'd be banging some JLO esque booty.

Earlier I misread and thought it said William was involved in gay rape lol!


Prince Big Earz is just a supah freak?

Eeeeek, Bones: only dogs want one....give me curves or give me death!

[Edited on 7-11-2003 by Bout Time]

You people make me sick.

quote from BT

"especially Charles who was roasted "

LOL.

I thought that only happened in porn movies.

Zzub

Hang in there!

Given a choice between being Diana's Prince Charming or Camilla Parker-Bowles' tampon, we know which one the future King is alleged to have chosen.

The royal family themselves are nothing but grubby, sordid moneyrakers of interesting and questionable origin. Keep pedestalising them, for the sake of the United Kingdom, otherwise, for heaven's sake, there will need to be a name change and new stamps and coins!

I don't find the rape accusations all that interesting or stimulating.

I find the distracting effect on some of those few people at ATS who care for the state of the planet to be more interesting.

Masked - they are after all OUR royal family - and as someone mentioned in a Jessica Lynch thread (you) please choose not to rad about them if you feel so strongly.

You might choose not to like them - but to the British economy they are actually very important - we value the Americans who come and lay out hard earned dollars to visit their homes and to see things like the changeing of the guard.

This isnt a republic this is a constitutional monarcy and we chose to have it this way. In the 18th century america chose not to have the monarch as its head and suceeded - we respect that.

I try to refrain from defamatory comments about US and other countries leaders because I have no part in their choice of leader - although i retain the right to criticise their actions - and I would hope others might do the same with our chosen path of democracy. After all we do have a few hundred years more practice than many other nations - including those choosing to establish their beliefs on other countries.

I dont think were ragging on them silk, were having fun at thier expense. The tales of thier....exploits fill our tabloids as well. Its all part of being a public figure, or a public family: everyone knows who you are, and thus, youre subject to mudballs and jokes at your expense.

I would have to agree, the monarchy is kinda a good attraction for foreign tourists. After all, no one goes to Australia to see the Prime minister, or Germany to see the Chancellor, Russia to see the premier because these people are boring and unworthy of note, just elected officals. But everyone goes to England.....cuz they wanna see the Queen! How many countries are left with one of those? I think Sweden and Denmark have royalty still floating around, but all the blue bloods have pretty much lost thier titles and now are just normal pukes. Thus, the attraction of......seeing the Queen! And the Prince with the face of a Chimp! And the palace! Perhaps you have the worlds only leader that pretty much warrants tourism.......who comes to the states cuz they wanna see the prez? No One! Even we dont go to Washington to see the Pres, we want to go to the FBI headquarters or smithsonian too check oput thier "history of narcotics" exibits

What no-one seems to have asked yet is WHY Diana was making such tapes. If you went to your employer to complain a workmate had raped you, wouldn't you find it a little strange when he/she pulls out a tape recorder and hits the red button?

Apparently the Police are holding onto TWENTY similar tapes. That's obviously not to say there where 20 other incidents, but it does say that she had a rather strange penchant for recording 'private' meetings with her underlings. I for one wouldn't be happy about that if I'd worked for her.

You know, I really never had any idea growing up that anyone even cared about the royal family. It amazes me.

So it seems Charlie arranges for his Mikey to get Georgie drunk and aided by a date rape drug Charlie and Mikey sodomise Georgie who thinks he remembers seeing Charlie or Mikey or was it both of them, anyways Mikey has tried it once with Georgie before, but Charlie wont hear anything bad about Mikey. Georgie drinks and got damaged between the ears in the Falkands and probably hears voices as well one would have you believe.

Reality TV or the third dimension?

Charles is thinking about doing an interview to prove that its just rumors. He has come back to England today to a media storm.....poor charlie

The queen mother died? When did that happen?
I didnt know. I feel sad. Well ,she was old. Im sure she had a good life.

Nobody ever tells me anything.


Mark

LOL, your like the only person on the planet who didnt know, call me morbid but theres nothing better than a good royal death, gets rid of most of that #e on our TV for a few days but then again we do have to put up with David Dimbleby's funeral commentary (BBC Funeral King)

Oh well, the pope will croak next, should be good for at least 24 hours.

I've believed all along Britain was blackmailed into going to war with the U.S. against Iraq.

Royal Buggery?


The prince & the manservant
Newspapers worldwide publish allegations of sexual contact between Prince Charles and aide

LONDON

SEVERAL newspapers the world over yesterday published allegations that the British press is barred from reporting: that Prince Charles was once involved in a homosexual encounter with an aide.

The purported sexual contact, according to the reports, took place between the Prince and one of his closest advisers, Mr Michael Fawcett.

The allegations arose from a tape that was found in a mahogany box owned by the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

On that tape, Mr George Smith, a former royal servant who had suffered from alcoholism and post-traumatic stress syndrome after fighting in the Falklands War, said he had been raped by another male royal aide.

He also claimed to have witnessed a compromising sexual encounter involving a member of the royal family.

The British tabloid press yearned to publish Mr Smith's account but was restrained by the law. So, the newspapers went the suggestion route, continually printing the same odd photograph of Prince Charles standing with another man in a field, without explaining why the photograph had any significance.

The Prince attempted to face down these claims. Despite the reservations of his companion Camilla Parker Bowles, he personally sanctioned his private secretary to appear on TV to make a denial, without saying what the allegation was.
straitstimes.asia1.com.sg...[/ url]


Is The Future King A Queen?
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: November 9, 2003 12:01 a.m. ET


(London) Details are finally emerging about allegations Britain's Prince Charles had a sexual affair with one of his aides, Michael Fawcett.

So concerned are Charles' supporters about suggestions he could be bisexual, they have succeeded in getting a court order banning publication in the UK of any of the details. The Prince then took the extraordinary step of issuing a denial of the allegations.

"Anyone who knows the Prince of Wales at all would appreciate that the allegation is totally ludicrous and, indeed, risible," the Prince's secretary Sir Michael Peat said in an unprecedented statement on the matter

But, with the media unable to to print what it was he was denying having done, it served to worsen the crisis.

While British papers are under a gag order preventing them from saying much about the charge, made by a former servant, that hasn't stopped the foreign media from seizing on every lurid detail.
[url=http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/110803charlesScandal.htm]http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/110803charlesScandal.htm

Are press and media cannot talk about it, yet its all over the internet and international papers. They might aswell publish the claims and if its not true it will die out in weeks

It seems as though Prince Charles has really stepped into it this time..

Michael Fawcett: Trusted aide

Trusted aide Michael Fawcett resigned earlier this year amid claims about gifts to the royal household. He now finds himself at the centre of the renewed controversy surrounding Prince Charles, his former employer.


Michael Fawcett took legal action to prevent the Mail on Sunday and then the Guardian from publishing his name in relation to an incident with a senior member of the Royal Family.

Following a succesful challenge by the Guardian to publish Mr Fawcett's name - but not the allegation - Prince Charles took the unusual step to deny the unspecified allegation, thereby revealing himself as the Royal involved.

The latest Royal troubles come several months after Mr Fawcett left his position following the Peat report into the conduct of the prince's household.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I can't find the REAL DETAILS ANYWHERE. I'm going to check the Italian site.

I just wanted to reply to Leveller,who incidently appears incapable of holding a discussion without becoming insulting.

I won't quote his last post.It is there for everyone to read.

The Monarch in Great Britain is the head of 3 of the main pillars of the establishment.
Namely.

1/Head of State.

2/Head of the Church of England.

3/As the "Crown",the head of the Judiciary.

On grounds do I call for Prince Charles to stand down as heir apparent?

Well not on the grounds that he would be a homosexual Head of State.His sexual preferences should not preclude him from becoming so.That would be simple discrimination.Whether the allegation were true or not.

Point two is an interesting one but though I was Christened in the Church of England I am not a regular visitor to church and don't really consider myself to be an interested party.Any decision on this should be taken by the faithful and again should not presuppose that he is homosexual.

No it is the third pillar that troubles me and whether he is homosexual or not has no bearing on this.
The libel laws have been twisted to protect him and we are left to wonder if it is right or proper that the Crown should prosecute.
Another example of this could be seen at the end of the expensive trial of Paul Burrel when at the last moment the Queen suddenly "remembered" vital evidence which caused the trial to collapse.

Charles and the Queen have both been seen to wield their power for their own ends and not soley in the public interest.
The libel law is very clear it is a case of Publish and be damned.Once the allegation the injured party has the right to sue.
Privacy law is another matter altogether but we are not talking about privacy law,we are talking about libel law.

No one should be Head of State if they have been shown to pervert the course of justice.

So you see whether Charles is homosexual or not is irrelevent to my argument.

He should go because he has shown that he can not be trusted with the power.

Yes, this is an excellent point.

propa-#ing-ganda
i support the monarchy, losing a monarchy will eliminate all whats left of the old-times.
why eliminate them? the wh|tehouse has had this on their list of DO'S, britain's help in the 2nd gulf war so blindly lead by BLAIR, now why would he want that so bad?more power was promised to him...
now how can a man of such stature gain more "power" he has it all right? wrong.
in my oppinion he was promised to become pres. if he did so, and now...you see the mystery unraveling...such a bleak contravention, charles called gay, the monarchy put into shame....
does this happen to remind any1 of clinton's case? he himself had become a little too powerful, too single-minded
the U.S seriously need to change the way they use that power....or they might find most of europe leaning a little too far in with *gasp* the opposition?
^^^ a worst case scenario......
i know it's all propaganda-based elimination...
the monarchy will sadly be overthrown, there is nothing we can do to stop it.
*swears royally and shakes fist at whitehouse*
this info is provided for informational purposes ONLY, the writer of this is in no way to be depicted responsible.

[Edited on 10-11-2003 by Cyrus]