Royal Gossip
April 25, 2019, 09:18:17 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Prince Charles and Fawcett  (Read 7341 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dasher
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 342



« on: March 22, 2014, 08:55:15 pm »

"Another case of a homosexual scandal that never made it to the British public, but won't go away even after all this time, was Prince Charles’s alleged illicit homosexual affair with one of his servants. As rumors surfaced in 2003, Michael Fawcett, a former royal aide to the prince, got an injunction from the High Court. It prevented the British press from reporting the details of the lurid allegations.

The 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.

Guardian revealed that the servant who obtained an injunction against the Mail on Sunday to prohibit publication of a story is Michael Fawcett, a former servant to Prince Charles. The injunction against the Mail on Sunday remains in force at that time, but I don't know if it was ever lifted?  judge

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  lived long enough".
The implications regarding the allegations as possibly being used to help Diana gain custody are staggering and certainly a bit of an eye opener for me.

My, the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Guelph inbreds lives are fraught with sleazy, skulduggery and full of skeletons in their dark, dark  cupboards.  spy

http://www.throneout.com/2003/11/royal-scandal-what-we-can-and-cant-tell.html
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 09:01:08 pm by Dasher » Logged
gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10107


« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2014, 09:08:03 pm »

Great find Dasher, some very interesting reading indeed.
Logged
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6035



« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2014, 12:13:19 am »

supposedly the servant who witnessed this went to Diana - the servant claimed he had been assaulted by Fawcett.  Paul Burrell supposedly had the tape Diana made of her conversation with the servant and this is why the Queen then intervened in the trial against Burrell re: stealing things of Diana - tp prevent the tape from coming out.  The Queen's intervention it seems to me probably was because of a concern about what was on that tape/.

The thing is - Charles being bisexual would not be a scandal today in that - it is very politically incorrect to censor someone for being gay.
Logged
Royal Lowness
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 711



« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2014, 12:53:19 am »

A sad state of affairs.
Logged


Perhaps it's time for Henry IX and
The House of Hewitt ?
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6035



« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2014, 01:18:33 am »

It i is obvious I do not buy a lot of the theories that float about - but this is one story I suspect is true.  And the real issue here is not that PC may be bisexual or not.  But rather that the law does not apply to the sovereign and her family.  Our system is based on the rule of law - yet it is clear from this case - that this is not true for the RF.  And if it not true for the RF - who else can subvert the law to get away with shenanigans?  Or what kind of other shenanigans are the RF getting away with?  I just think this is serious - and it amazes me that the media especially does not fight this harder. 
Logged
Royal Lowness
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 711



« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2014, 05:31:04 pm »

^

For once, I agree with you.
Logged


Perhaps it's time for Henry IX and
The House of Hewitt ?
Stephanie
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5865



« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2014, 06:07:04 pm »

http://static.tumblr.com/93330496aa9de60630b6a6abe184199d/qqr3amu/yWin2ncyx/tumblr_static_tumblr_n2ncdwzqty1s7g60mo4_250.gif
Wimpo appears to be a chip of the old block. ick
Logged
Dasher
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 342



« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2014, 07:40:27 pm »


The thing is - Charles being bisexual would not be a scandal today in that - it is very politically incorrect to censor someone for being gay.

Politically correct hogwash is nothing more than the great push for homosexuality (the correct term) to be accepted as a part of our culture or even as a new race of people that should be accorded every protection of law is one example. It's immoral!  bignono

Mr. Philip Atkinson said,
"Political Correctness is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behavior, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution of the state."

Government from the Latin verb - Guverno, Guvernare, "Meaning To Control"
& the Latin noun, Mens, Mentis meaning "Mind" To Control The Mind.
Logged
CathyJane
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5377


« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2014, 11:53:54 pm »

It i is obvious I do not buy a lot of the theories that float about - but this is one story I suspect is true.  And the real issue here is not that PC may be bisexual or not.  But rather that the law does not apply to the sovereign and her family.  Our system is based on the rule of law - yet it is clear from this case - that this is not true for the RF.  And if it not true for the RF - who else can subvert the law to get away with shenanigans?  Or what kind of other shenanigans are the RF getting away with?  I just think this is serious - and it amazes me that the media especially does not fight this harder. 

 thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
Logged
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6035



« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2014, 02:23:58 am »

Dasher - I totally agree with you about political correctness - it is a shame tactic used to silence disagreement.  But it is real and so no one would criticize PC for an affair with Fawscett.  Maybe that is why the media isn't following this up.

But again - how can a court dismiss a case just on  the say so of PC?  I find that outrageous.  There is no legal basis to do this.  Plus - was Fawcett not given some sort of very large bonus when he left PC's "employ"?  So there is now an issue around the use of D of C funds. 
Logged
Dasher
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 342



« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2014, 11:42:14 am »

^ goodpost
Logged
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11197


« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2014, 01:24:13 am »

the thing is that Charles if these allegations are true is staying in the closet. He is not being open about it and Camilla is apparently a cover if the allegations are true. He wanted heirs so he used Diana to get them, since he was so egocentric his own flesh and blood had to succeed him. Also a great to do was made about Charles sowing wild oats and Mountbatten encouraging him to learn from sexually experienced women.

Logged
india
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6873


« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2014, 01:48:22 am »

Well, has Charles followed in Uncle Dickie's footsteps?
Logged
Royal Lowness
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 711



« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2014, 07:27:15 pm »

Diana knew about her husband and Michael Fawcett even on her honeymoon.
Logged


Perhaps it's time for Henry IX and
The House of Hewitt ?
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11197


« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2014, 07:33:52 pm »

Stephen Barry was working for Charles then not Fawcett. How could Diana know about Fawcett on the honeymoon?
Logged
Royal Lowness
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 711



« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2014, 07:42:04 pm »

In the same way that Diana knew about Mrs. Parker-Bowles on the honeymoon.
Logged


Perhaps it's time for Henry IX and
The House of Hewitt ?
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11197


« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2014, 07:44:28 pm »

Yes, she knew the hold that Camilla had on him on the honeymoon despite hubby's promises made at the wedding ceremony. Camilla was not going away.
Logged
Dasher
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 342



« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2014, 11:56:12 pm »

Yes, she knew the hold that Camilla had on him on the honeymoon despite hubby's promises made at the wedding ceremony. Camilla was not going away.

Most likely that hold is the child  baby Charlie sired with Camilla Parker Bowles, when he was sixteen, she was seventeen. His name is Simon Charles Day. Well methinks that's another reason the Brigadier ex-husband of that ghastly woman Cammie was happy enough to be cuckolded by Charlie boy. No doubt with a handsome pay off to boot!
Logged
CathyJane
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 5377


« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2014, 12:22:28 am »

what???
Logged
Royal Lowness
Baroness
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 711



« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2014, 01:00:03 am »

There's a girl as well, I think.
Logged


Perhaps it's time for Henry IX and
The House of Hewitt ?
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!