[perryp]

The British royal family's lawyers are working overtime to suppress the story of Charles' homosexual affair with Fawcett and prevent any websites from publishing it:

The trial of Paul Burrell, Diana's butler, was stopped in November 2002 after a single phone call from Prince Charles to the judge of the trial. Prince Charles claimed that the Queen had suddenly remembered details of a conversation she had with Paul Burrell shortly after Diana's death. During this conversation, Burrell is said to have told the Queen he would be taking some items for safe keeping. This revelation lead to the ending of the trial, despite the fact that the statement by Prince Charles was legally nothing more than hearsay. The Queen or Prince Charles was never asked to back up this statement in writing, or under oath. Legally speaking, this is unprecedented. Anybody else coming forward with such 'evidence' at a late date may well be charged with wasting police time for not mentioning it earlier, and would certainly be required to sign an affidavit under threat of perjury.

The press began to speculate that the Queen and Prince Charles had wanted the trial stopped because Burrell as part of his defence was about to make revelations that would shake the monarchy, and possibly endanger its future. Burrell had claimed as much.

Slowly, details of these allegations have begun to surface.

Here is a summary, links to further sources of information follow.

There are actually 2 allegations.

The first is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal is alleged to have male raped George Smith, another palace servant. George Smith later reported the alleged attack to Police and it is suggested that the claims have been recorded on various video tapes possibly by Diana. George Smith later withdrew his complaint when questioned by Police. He was also given a £38,000 pay off by Prince Charles, apparently unconnected with the withdrawl of his complaint.

The second allegation is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal was found in bed with that royal by a servant. Both the royal and the servant are male. This allegation is also said to have been recorded by Diana.

It must be noted that these are at present just allegations. No court of law has ruled on their veracity. However, the royal family and their 'friends' have abused all legal precedent to make sure no court gets a chance.

A senior royal servant has recently obtained an injunction against the Mail on Sunday (and now other newspapers) prohibiting them from publishing this story complete with the names of the alleged participants, on the grounds that it is defamatory. When the injunction was issued, another was then slapped on the Guardian newspaper to stop them even naming the person in whose name the injunction was issued. However, that was apparently overturned, revealing that it was Michael Fawcett, 'trusted aide' to Prince Charles. A senior royal is also said to have written a letter to the Mail on Sunday asking that it not publish the story.

At present the injuction is in force, but is being fought by the newspapers. It is unprecedented for a court to grant such an injunction. The usual course of action for defamation is to sue for damages after such a statement has been made. A defence to defamation is truth, it is not defamatory to state the truth. The newspapers believe they have sufficient evidence and are prepared to publish on that basis, facing enormous damages claims if it is later held to be untrue. At present they are being prevented from doing so. Even more unprecedented is that much of the court's proceedings were held in private with the press and public excluded on request of the Fawcett's lawyers. Is justice being abused? Who knows when it is conducted in private. It is certainly not seen to be done.

At some point the court must decide whether such a statement is true, and libel is one of the few civil actions where a jury is required. The legal situation could be interesting, to say the least. As with the Burrell trial, it appears that legal precedent and the rule of law is being discarded to keep the Windsor's dirty secrets secret a little longer.

Clearly revelation of such a secret, and the fact that Diana was collating evidence of these secrets that the Palace is so keen to hide, will further speculation that Diana's death was no accident. Some have suggested that this evidence may have formed part of a custody battle, if Diana had have lived long enough.

Once again Diana's death has created a legally dubious situation. Firstly there must be an inquest when a British Citizen killed abroad is returned home. This inquest has been opened but then adjourned, and some 6 years after her death there are no plans to re open it.

To add further controversy, the Royal Coroner has been appointed. However Diana was not royal (her royal status was removed before her death as a result of her divorce) and she was not found dead in a royal palace. Therefore there would appear to be no legal course to appoint a Royal Coroner. However this is exactly what has happened. Why is this suspicious? Well, an inquest usually has a jury of ordinary members of the public. However a Royal Inquest has only hand picked members of the royal household. A nobbled jury? Add it all together and there is a nasty stench. No wonder the Royal Family are trying to keep you, the people who pay for their extravagant lifestyle, in the dark.


Links:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003510556,00.html
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/n...name_page.html
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspub...078442,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/leg...p?story=460962
http://www.republic.org.uk/fun/MOS_2-11-3.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=al...TF-8&hl=en

[chris v]

How much money could the Brits save annually if they sent those inbreds packing?

Monarchy has about as much use as... well... nothing.

CV

[scoxx]

Originally posted by chris v:
Monarchy has about as much use as... well... nothing.

[christ]

Originally posted by chris v:
How much money could the Brits save annually if they sent those inbreds packing?

It is my understanding that they are a net earner, so the answer would be nothing.

The interesting thing is that they don't seem to have to do much to earn the UK lots of money. Odd really.

It is also worth noting, from the same link,

In republics not only do presidents have to be supported financially, as do former presidents and widows, but their official duties have to be paid for, and official and historic residences maintained. And there is the added expense of periodic elections. Republics show great reluctance in publishing the cost of their heads of state, but the cost of the British monarchy compares extremely favourably

[scoxx]

In republics not only do presidents have to be supported financially, as do former presidents and widows, but their official duties have to be paid for, and official and historic residences maintained.

There is no international law which dictates this.

And there is the added expense of periodic elections.

That's not obvious. Why has nobody told me this before? If I knew this, I would have voted for dictatorship instead of democracy.

Republics show great reluctance in publishing the cost of their heads of state

Yet the author provides no documentation or evidence to back up this statement.

but the cost of the British monarchy compares extremely favourably

The author conveniently leaves out which Republic he's comparing to.

[chris v]

Originally posted by christ:
It is my understanding that they are a net earner, so the answer would be nothing.

The interesting thing is that they don't seem to have to do much to earn the UK lots of money. Odd really.

It is also worth noting, from the same link,

Do they charge millions for speaking engagements? Do they make money charging torists to visit their palaces? Or do they just invest and earn interest on their fabulous wealth? What exactly are the sources of income that the Crown Estate engages in? I'm really kinda curious.

(BTW, I don't give a good goddam about who Charles slept with. Other people's beedroom activities don't much titilate me, unless they're much better looking than him, and captured in photogarphs. )

CV

[christ]

Originally posted by scoxx:
There is no international law which dictates this...
The author conveniently leaves out which Republic he's comparing to.

Don't be so touchy.

It doesn't say 'according to international law', neither does it say (as you note) that it applies to America.

What does it matter - chill dude. I posted the link in answer to a different question (how much do the inbreds cost the Brits?) and pointed out something that may not have been noted.

Although - how much does security cost for your ex-Presidents?

And how much do they charge for speaking engagements (British Royalty don't charge)?

[christ]

Originally posted by chris v:
<list of questions>

Do they charge millions for speaking engagements? No (unlike ex-Presidents), although minor Royals, particularly by marriage, have a habit of fleecing unwary Americans who have a taste for that sort of thing

Do they make money charging to[u]rists to visit their palaces? Yes (but a trivial amount in the scheme of things - probably not enough to cover upkeep). There is a genuine interest in how and where the head of state and her family live, it is simple to avoid being rooked by this - don't go - it isn't compulsory.

Or do they just invest and earn interest on their fabulous wealth? 'just'? why 'just'? They do what all wealthy landowners do - they spend money and they save money.

What exactly are the sources of income that the Crown Estate engages in? Exactly the same as those that other wealthy landowners have.

The Royal Family have enormous wealth, by virtue of their inherited position. This could be taken away by removing their inheritance, but it would be odd to hear that sort of suggestion on a board that is normally so vehemently against socialism. They are popular (although not with everyone, in fact, not with me), and their position is widely envied. They do at least as much good for their country as most non-Royal rich folk or politicians.

BTW, I don't give a good goddam about who Charles slept with.

Me neither - that's why I dodged that bit of the thread.

[Spliffdaddy]

Clinton earned over $9 million in speaking engagements.

It probably cost taxpayers $50 million to provide security during those engagements

We should pay ex-Presidents more if they stay at home.

Carter is like all over the globe. He probably didn't earn any money for his (mostly non-profit) endeavours. If he earned anything, he probably gave it away. Still, it has to cost something to provide security for him.

I just don't see how it can cost all that much to oversee the safety of a handful of ex-Presidents. Nothing like the cost of maintaining a palace and its staff, for example.

[scoxx]

Originally posted by christ:
It doesn't say 'according to international law', neither does it say (as you note) that it applies to America.

Only international law could dictate what the author claims Republics must do.

America? I didn't mention or refer to America...

Although - how much does security cost for your ex-Presidents?

Security for ex-Presidents is not something that's inherent to Republics.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by chris v:
How much money could the Brits save annually if they sent those inbreds packing?

Monarchy has about as much use as... well... nothing.

CV

The Royals bring tourists. Tourism brings in millions of pounds and protects the country's heritage and culture from the nature raping, multi-colored pop culture of corporate boom-bust oligarchies.

I'd rather have a good monarchy alongside a functioning democracy than a bunch of Texan corporates that rape the environment, start wars and trample democracy. The Royals of Britain have not done that. And what's more, Royal families tend to get replaced every so often.

[thunderous_funker]

Since this has already derailed into a comparison of the relative cost/benefit merits of constitutional monarchy vs. republic, I suppose it means everyone here is as completely and utterly disinterested in the sex life of British Royals as I am.

This restores my faith a bit. Bravo, everyone

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I just don't see how it can cost all that much to oversee the safety of a handful of ex-Presidents. Nothing like the cost of maintaining a palace and its staff, for example.

We don't just pay for their physical safety (24-hour Secret Service protection) but also for their "presidential" office space. The various presidential libraries are built and run on donations but each president is guaranteed an office and reasonable accomodations for staffing on the taxpayers dime, for as long as they want it. This was a big deal with Clinton when he was thinking about renting an entire **floor** of an office building in mid-town Manhattan for many millions of dollars a year in rent. after the ensuing negative press he decides to move "uptown" and buys up an office building in Harlem gaining tremendous praise in the process. This isn't necessarily to bash Clinton but to indicate that maintaining several ex-presidents could be as costly as maintaining a royal household.

[thunderous_funker]

Do the Royals pay any of their own way? I mean, their massive wealth grants them considerable income (unless they are amazingly incompetent). Is any of that used to maintain their luxurious lifestyle? What to taxpayers pay for and what do they Royals pay for themselves?

Depending on their assets, it seems to me the Royal family might actually be able to cover their costs.

[RooneyX]

You guys don't know the full story. It's not like these Royals are just sitting there living on the tax payer's money. They have businesses, they are landlords, property developers, etc. They make far more money from that than anything else. Put it this way, the war in Iraq is costing billions and lots of it is going to a bunch of Texans whose name you don't even know. The amount it costs to maintain a Royal family is pennies in comparison to the way the Treasury is raped by Repugs. I would rather have a Prince Charles and a heritage than a President Tony Blair and Vice President Peter Mandelson selling a nation's resources of to privatization.

Look at how National Rail was run by private companies and you'll see how important heritage and tradition can be in some respects compared to the world of greedy high private finance, corporate money guzzlers and others. Some traditions should be maintained and kept in the hands of the nation. The Royals are the people's heritage and history. It's what makes people feel British no matter what their background. Without them everything will crumble into the Texan way of running a nation.

[perryp]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
The Royals are the people's heritage and history. It's what makes people feel British no matter what their background. Without them everything will crumble into the Texan way of running a nation.

Not strictly true. Royalty and corrupt capitalism aren't the only options. There can be good government without either. If you look at the statistics from nationmaster.com, you'll see that nations like Finland, Iceland, S. Korea, Hong Kong come out top in terms of education, democracy, low crime etc - all the 'good' indicators.

These countries don't have Royal families

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Do the Royals pay any of their own way? I mean, their massive wealth grants them considerable income (unless they are amazingly incompetent). Is any of that used to maintain their luxurious lifestyle? What to taxpayers pay for and what do they Royals pay for themselves?

Depending on their assets, it seems to me the Royal family might actually be able to cover their costs.

I think a point missed in all this is that the life of a British royal must absolutely, positively, and utterly suck. I can't think of other public figures who are scrutinized and judged so mercilessly, who are born into a world of such rigid expectations. I wouldn't live that life for twice the pile of cash Charles is sitting on.

[thunderous_funker]

Whoa, no need for everyone to be so defensive. I'm not knocking the Royals. I'm asking an honest question that occured to me while comparing that cost to the cost we undertake for our Presidents.

I'm well aware that the Royals all generate incomes which is why I asked in the first place. What do they pay for and what do the taxpayers pay for? Its an honest question because I'm curious. Considering the income they probably generate, I'd have to think they could probably manage to not require too much taxpayer support.

I'm also not blasting them for being rich. I wouldn't trade places with a Royal for anything in the world. Considering how much solicitors get my blood boiling, I'd probably start murdering paparazzi within minutes of my coronation. I couldn't stand that for a second.

I rather like being nobody. It suits me just fine.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by perryp:
Not strictly true. Royalty and corrupt capitalism aren't the only options. There can be good government without either. If you look at the statistics from nationmaster.com, you'll see that nations like Finland, Iceland, S. Korea, Hong Kong come out top in terms of education, democracy, low crime etc - all the 'good' indicators.

These countries don't have Royal families

Hong Kong is one of the most corrupt places in the world.

Finland and Iceland? What's the point comparing them to a nation like Britain which has one of the strongest economies in the world and was an Empire? You've got to compare like cultures with like. If Britain got rid of the monarchy and had Presidents like Blair, how soon before it becomes a mess like the US? I wouldn't want it.

Tourists come to Britain because of it's history. To destroy a major part of that would fracture society. The monarchy, as long as it's good, gives people a feeling of togetherness. Replace that you'll just get President worship like you do in some parts of the US 'How dare you speak against the President!?!'

In Britain everybody can curse the Prime Minister publicly, make fun of his family and also make criticise and investigate the Royals. That kind of openess and sensibility could be lost if any major changes happened. It's a risk not worth taking.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

I'm well aware that the Royals all generate incomes which is why I asked in the first place. What do they pay for and what do the taxpayers pay for? Its an honest question because I'm curious. Considering the income they probably generate, I'd have to think they could probably manage to not require too much taxpayer support.

Taxpayers money spent on Royals is relatively little compared to how much the Whitehall bureaucracy costs. It covers almost entirely the maintanence of buildings such as Buckingham Palace, which although the Royals use them they are public places in that if another dynasty replaced this one then the properties are given over. So obviously those sites should be maintained by taxpayers money because that's what tourists come to see and that's what makes London and England look the way it does.

It might sound odd for a social-democrat leftist like me saying the monarchy should stay, I just think it's too risky to let go off. The cultural impact could be devastating. The Royals are respected everywhere they go. Look at Charles' trip to India last week (many Indians wish the Brits would return to clean up the mess there).

As far as I know, Charles is a good man, a little stern, a bit dim and dumb, but he's an environmentalist, an artist and speaks out against genetically modified foods and pop culture. 'President' Blair however has sold his soul to the GM corporations. Now imagine there was nobody above the a republican president who could speak out. That's what would happen if we got rid of the monarchy.

[perryp]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Hong Kong is one of the most corrupt places in the world.

i thought Hong Kong wasn't the best example when I wrote my post.

Originally posted by RooneyX:
You've got to compare like cultures with like.

then why compare the US with the UK?

[lil'babykitten]

um....where are you guys getting the part about Prince Charles being gay from?

[perryp]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Hong Kong is one of the most corrupt places in the world.

Of the five LEAST CORRUPT nations according to nationmaster.com are:
Finland
Denmark
New Zealand
Iceland
Singapore

Only Denmark has a (purely decorative) royal family.

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
um....where are you guys getting the part about Prince Charles being gay from

Charles buggered his aide fawcett. Very few websites (in fact, only one - a swiss website) are prepared to publicise the fact, despite the fact that all the UK front pages have headlines saying 'prince denies rumours' (without saying what the rumors are)

[thunderous_funker]

If the Prince really is guilty of buggering Fawcett, would it really be necessary to go to such lengths to cover it up?

I mean, would Brits really care that much? He's already produced and Heir, who cares if we wants to putt from the rough in his autumn years??

[BlackGriffen]

I thought Charles already did his duty when he, obviously grudgingly, did Di and had two sons. Now that he has successors, who cares if wants to bump uglies with the ladies or roll with the men.

I mean, seriously, who cares if Chuck is gay? Queen Elizabeth is probably going to hold on to the throne so long that the crown will skip Charles anyway.



Charles, stop that! You can put your stick in his ear later, in private.

BlackGriffen

[quandarry]

Originally posted by perryp:
Charles buggered his aide fawcett. Very few websites (in fact, only one - a swiss website) are prepared to publicise the fact, despite the fact that all the UK front pages have headlines saying 'prince denies rumours' (without saying what the rumors are)

why that dirty bugger!

didn't he fantasize about being camilla's tampon at one time?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by perryp:

then why compare the US with the UK?

Because apart from differences in government these two nations are almost identical in every other way, same food, music, language, etc (apart from the size of the nations too). If you strip Britain's cultural heritage and replace it with a republican model it becomes mini-USA. I don't think that's welcome unless one day the US finally perfect it's own model to become a beacon to the rest of the world.

[quandarry]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Because apart from differences in government these two nations are almost identical in every other way, same food, music, language, etc (apart from the size of the nations too). If you strip Britain's cultural heritage and replace it with a republican model it becomes mini-USA. I don't think that's welcome unless one day the US finally perfect it's own model to become a beacon to the rest of the world.

you must live on a different planet...

[eklipse]

Poor ol' Chuck

First dogs:



Now blokes.

Tut tut.

[Sherwin]

At least it wasn't a sheep. He is the Prince of Wales.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
The monarchy, as long as it's good, gives people a feeling of togetherness. Replace that you'll just get President worship like you do in some parts of the US 'How dare you speak against the President!?!'

I've seen royal family worship.

I have also been talked down to for making Royal family jokes by their "people"

So yes it happens both places anyhow.

Oh and we actively speak against our president daily.

In Britain everybody can curse the Prime Minister publicly, make fun of his family and also make criticise and investigate the Royals. That kind of openess and sensibility could be lost if any major changes happened. It's a risk not worth taking.

Just like we do with our President.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I wouldn't trade places with a Royal for anything in the world. Considering how much solicitors get my blood boiling, I'd probably start murdering paparazzi within minutes of my coronation. I couldn't stand that for a second.

Yeah, but you gotta love the title.

C'mon, King Thunderous_funker sounds pretty cool.

[perryp]

I thought Charles already did his duty when he, obviously grudgingly, did Di and had two sons.

James Hewitt is the father of Prince Harry

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Just like we do with our President.

No you can't. There are limits. You can't say 'I wish someone would shoot him.'. It's against the law in the US. And in the future you might even get taken away in secret to some place in Texas because you're deemed a threat to national security.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
No you can't. There are limits. You can't say 'I wish someone would shoot him.'. It's against the law in the US. And in the future you might even get taken away in secret to some place in Texas because you're deemed a threat to national security.

I just said it multiple times.

Woops

Just said it again.

Many people say it. I've heard people in here wish him dead.

It's only when you start conspiring to do something, or making comments to conspire.

You can also make a joke about it, then have someone report it as if it was serious just because they don't like you.

Ask Cash.

[Mohammed Atef]

I can't believe so many of you sourkraut wankers give two pence about some holier-than-thou, upper-crust, scandal-infested, superfluous and impotent mechanism of a democratic country.

don't get me wrong--I don't wish them any harm. But this lame, tiresome obsession with royalty has got to stop.

if this weren't Britain we're talking about, I'd lump you in with Old Europe and its current dwelling deep at the bottom of a foul pool of social depravity, debauchery, disgusting hedonism, and moral bankruptcy.

but that's just me. Good thing it's Britain.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by scoxx:
Only international law could dictate what the author claims Republics must do.

Simple logistics can do so as well. I mean, international law doesn't dictate that a sitting President must obey the law of gravity, and yet they all still have to.

I think that what the article mentions is that someone has to support sitting Presidents and maintain historical homes and all that other stuff. In a republic, that generally falls to the government.

My guess is that the article is trying to say that the royal family could easily support itself. Frankly, I'm not sure I buy that, but I think that's what it wants you to think anyway.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
No you can't. There are limits. You can't say 'I wish someone would shoot him.'. It's against the law in the US. And in the future you might even get taken away in secret to some place in Texas because you're deemed a threat to national security.

As our very own Ca$h found out a while ago, when he called some politician "sniper meat" or some such on these forums, and the Secret Service showed up on his doorstep.

-s*

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

Carter is like all over the globe. He probably didn't earn any money for his (mostly non-profit) endeavors. If he earned anything, he probably gave it away. Still, it has to cost something to provide security for him.

Jimmy Carter gave up his Secret Service protection detail years ago. When he travels, it's on his own dime, without government security.

He might not have been a great president, but he really seems to have come into his own as a humanitarian since he left office. I think that will be his legacy, being president is just a foot note in his life.

I know this is off topic, and I started off just to clarify Spliff's point about paying for security, but I got thinking about Carter. For most people, getting elected president of your country would be your greatest accomplishment. For a peanut farmer from Georgia, it seems it's a stepping stone to greater things.

[lil'babykitten]

The sooner the monarchy goes the sooner we can get rid of the 'class' BS.
They do absolutely nothing anyway.

[theolein]

****, this thread is simply fuing hilarious. Some of the loonies on this board actually take Charles' sex life seriously, call for the banishment of the monarchy, even try to compare the political circus that is American politics with the circus that is British royality and then cap it all by asking why the pommies keep the Royal family.

J.C. on a crutch. The Royal family is an institution in the UK, very much like Hollywood is in the USA. A lot of the English love the monarchy for the pure symbolic value and a good deal of the far left Labour loonies have been calling for their banishment for as long as there's been a Labour party.

But the Royal family provides a far more important service to the English and international public: What would all the proles and tabloid readers do without regular sleaze reporting on the various family members sex lives, scandals and other titbits? It's entertainment, and fairly harmless entertainment for the country as a whole as the Royal family has no real say in politics, anymore. It's just like Justin Timberlake telling the sleaze press about Britney's virginity, except that the characters stay around longer.

The English Royal family is simply the best known Royal family in the world, but there are many in Europe and around the World. A short list of countries that have Royal houses which regularly contribute their bit to the tabloid press:
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
Holland
Liechtenstein
Monaco
Belgium
Spain
Saudi Arabia*
Kuwait*
Qatar*
Dubai*
Swaziland
Thailand
Japan

*Have real power and you can get body parts chopped off for saying nasty things.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
The sooner the monarchy goes the sooner we can get rid of the 'class' BS.

Not so. It's the "working class" who maintain the class system - nobody else cares. Reverse snobbery and all that.

Originally posted by theolein:
*Have real power and you can get body parts chopped off for saying nasty things.

Note that Rainier III also has a bit of power, seeing as pretty much what he says goes in Monaco (as oppose to just being there for decoration).

----------
Anyways... Just heard something which casts doubt in my mind about this whole Charlie thing. The source of this rumour is a guy who's stated in the past that he was raped in his sleep and didn't notice. Now, I've never had the pleasure of male "company" but I assume that it'd be pretty difficult to not notice it happening.

So, I figure the whole lot is BS.


Anyways... I'm off to drink a toast to Liz and Phil.

[3gg3]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
a foul pool of social depravity, debauchery, disgusting hedonism, and moral bankruptcy. but that's just me.

Bingo!

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by 3gg3:
Bingo!

soooo clever. Bet your mommy gave you a doggy treat when you'd stand up on two legs, too.