Prince Charles involved in Gay rape allegation?

Seems hard to believe doesn't it and yet............

Why else would Diana want a copy of "that tape"?

The link I'm giving was promoted by Channel 4 news in relation to this story.This is the only utterance on this subject I could find on the site.

I would stress that this is an allegation or perhaps I only inference.

www.republic.org.uk...

It certainly gives us a new meaning to the term "Head of State"

If it is true he will not ever be King.



[Edited on 5-11-2003 by John bull 1]

When this stuff surfaced a couple of years back, I linked it in my head with Charles (rather than Edward or Andrew as you suggested in the other thread on this topic).

Note to all future monarchs: When in doubt about the servants you thought you paid off, raid their houses and the houses of their relatives, and be sure to eliminate the evidence, and them.

If it is true it could spell the end of the monarchy in Great Britain.

Not because of the allegation itself but because of the extraordinary lengths that the establishment have gone to suppress it in a supposedly free media.

that the url for that link had "fun" in it made me giggle. I thought the original problem was that one of Charles' servants raped another servant, and Charles covered it up. of course, it did cross my mind that Charles was more involved than that. but if that's the case, what purpose does Camilla Parker-Bowles serve? if he was looking for a beard, he sure could have done better.

Ive always had an irrational hatred of the monarchy
must be the McCurdy & Stuart Blood From Bute Scotland
So I will abstain from the comment Id like to make

Mother fixation?

There were two cases MC.One involved two servants and that has come to light already.
The other is the story that a senior member of the Royal Family was involved in a gay rape allegation and that Diana interveiwed the servant in question and recorded it.

The media have known of this for a while but have been unable to publish details because of a recent court injunction based on libel laws.The law of libel does not allow suppression of an allegation,however,only that once made it could be challenged.

I think it's fairly obvious why it was suppressed.

Anyway the cat is out of the bag now.

[Edited on 5-11-2003 by John bull 1]

Sorry,I'm assuming everyone knows the details on this.

Here is a link to a news items from today on the suppression of imformation.

www.channel4.com...

Two newspapers, the Mail on Sunday and the Guardian have repeatedly tried to name a royal servant who has made allegations about his time in a royal household. Both have been injuncted from naming him.

Today, a High Court judge decided that the Guardian's appeal against the gagging order should itself be heard behind closed doors. Our chief correspondent Alex Thomson reports.

The Guardian and Mail on Sunday want to name names and give what they say are extremely serious details to the public, so off went the lawyers to the High Court this afternoon.


[Edited on 5-11-2003 by John bull 1]

Charles chose Camilla over Di...of course he's gay!

Perhaps Camilla is really in drag?

Alot of stories are circling around my good old monarchy, must of them can bring the monarchy down.
Whitehall has been planning to end the monarchy after the queen steps down or dies, a story like this would help that process alot

Just to let people know I've moved this here to Political Scandals.

There is an old prophesy that no one called Charles will ever become King again.Ho hum.

You know I see this kinda of stuff happening all the time (well not Prince male rape, but you get the idea). It's a fact that free press can't truly be conducted with in a nation .... so why don't you report the news in a nother country and have people look a it over there.

For example, you could publish the allegations in a German newspaper and German news would be published in a English newspaper. So when the british wanted to know all the dirt on their country they'd read the english newspaper owned by Germany (which is outside of libel laws and the like) and vice versa. Freedom of the press can occur if the press is distributed away from the controlling power. Esp. if it's done online. Hell, maybe Freenet should be made a respectable news venue, if stories have several sources to back it up....

I think you are underestimating the power that these people actually have.

The constitutional implications of this revelation will shake the UK to it's core.

Charles is the future King and as so he is the future Head of State,Head of the Anglican Church,and Head of the Judicary.

They are wealthy and influential and to avoid major problems the British Government must prop them up.

Favours will be called in but the cat's out of the bag.

I don't care what kind of consitution you have: You can't stop bits from streaming over a network. Period.

This news can get out there, but people just don't have the dumbed down tools to do so...

The news is getting out.That is why it's been posted here.

There is a limit to the power even of a family that is related to the most powerful people in the world.

Prince Charles looks gay.

OK,The latest on this fast breaking story is that Charles'
Aide(alledged boyfriend)Michael Fawcett committed the rape against a servant and that Charles paid the servant off to keep quiet.

This Big story is breaking fast now.

Remember where you heard it first.

[Edited on 5-11-2003 by John bull 1]

Charles still looks gay.

Its ok by me if Charles wishes to be The Queen.
I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with certain allegations that Diana was murdered over her relationship with Dody what's his face.
That is just wrong, why not just let her out. Swear her to secrecy or whatever. But killing her was just BS.
I personally could care less now what happens with the monarchy. It lost to much credibility.
Mark

Silly Royals.