Log in

View Full Version : Prince Charles


Arkangel
November 10th, 2003, 06:55 PM
I can hardly believe it, that although I understand that the allegations against him have been printed all over the place, I STILL can't find a website telling me what they are.

Anyone got any links?

My bet is that he fucked a butler up the arse or something, but these royals are a wierd lot. Could be just about anything
:p

megalomania
November 10th, 2003, 08:50 PM
They were talking about this on Fox News last night, but I was only half paying attention. The British correspondant let the cat out of the bag about the sodomies, and the Fox News anchor apoligized to him because there was a possibility he commited some illegal act in doing that. They were talking about it on NPR this morning, but I think the bigger story here in America is that your not allowed to talk about the story (our journalists seem to enjoy puffing up the First Amendment like this).

You British people... :rolleyes:

Anthony
November 11th, 2003, 03:46 PM
IIRC even the US amendment granting free speach doesn't allow libel.

AFAIK, a court has ordered the silence of the press. I'd assume that it'd be similar in the US. The same thing sometimes gets done regarding crimes, the press has the ability to bias the public, and therefore possibly the resulting jury.

Of course it could just be a court judge scratching Charles' back...

I was wondering what the allegations were myself, got a hint from Have I Got News For You, but no details.

Rhadon
November 11th, 2003, 04:04 PM
The German Yahoo page says the following (quick and rough translation):

The accusations come from the former palace servant George Smith. Recently he said that he had seen a high-ranking royal in bed with a male servant when he came into the rooms with the breakfast tray. Charles commented that the accusations were lies.

:)

zeocrash
November 11th, 2003, 05:31 PM
i happened to speak to a mirror journalist the other day, the story is as follows
charlie had a gay relationship with one of his servants. after breaking up the servant then went and had consenting sex with another servant, the second servant withdrew his consent during the sex, so it became rape. prince charles covered up this rape for the servant.

tingtao
November 11th, 2003, 10:31 PM
Second that zeocrash. A reporter in NY told me the same exact situation. His report to the Times was altered at press. Interesting, yet not surprising!
Anyway...

Jacks Complete
November 12th, 2003, 07:07 AM
"withdrew his consent during sex"?

WTF?

Personally, I think only if you withdraw consent BEFORE sex can it count!

What next? Ex-girlfriends crying rape because after we split up, they "withdrew consent" for all those times we made out??

Anyway, the guy making the claims got fired for alcholism, didn't he? So it is likely to be sour grapes.

zeocrash
November 12th, 2003, 03:08 PM
i think what happened is the reciever wanted to stop and invormed the giver of this, but the giver continued regardless.
anyway rape laws are stacked against guys, you can be done for rape if you make out with a girl who' under the influence, even if you're under the influence too.

megalomania
November 12th, 2003, 04:21 PM
I've got news for you, men have been prosecuted (or should that be persecuted?) because bitches cried rape after withdrawing their consent during the act. Or so the bitches say. They get fucked, they don't like it (he didn't call me, he didn't cuddle, etc.) and the bitch cries rape. As I see it once you let the dick in, you had better be willing to stick it out because I don't know of any men who would stop until they go off.

If too many whores cry rape who can trust the ones who really are raped?

Jhonbus
November 12th, 2003, 07:29 PM
Of course it could just be a court judge scratching Charles' back...

Ohh, delicious, Anthony :D

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's left buttock what kinds of sodomy go on in the royal family. And I think practically anyone with an ounce of sense should have better things to think about. That said, LET'S ALL LAUGH AT BUM-BOY CHARLIE! (not that there's anything wrong with that)

Arkangel
November 12th, 2003, 07:51 PM
LET'S ALL LAUGH AT BUM-BOY CHARLIE!

Like your style Jhonbus!

I have no issue with sodomy per se (although I had to give it up personally, made my eyes water y'see), but what I do have a problem is the Royal Family being thrust upon us as somehow superior, or anyone for that matter.

If this guy's statement is untrue then he should be sued for libel/slander.....

1. He has said something which isn't true (allegedly)
2. He has said it in to a third party/ies
3. It relates to Prince Charles

The above are the 3 criteria which dictate if there is a case for suing, and if it is untrue then he should have his arse sued, along with any papers that repeat the slander. IF, however, there is some truth in it, then Charlie boy should be honest and say "yeah actually, I DO take it up the arse" and show some solidarity with all the other gay and bisexual blokes out there. Instead of this ridiculous gagging of the press.

And I STILL can't find anything on the internet stating the actual detailed allegation. What the fuck's going ON? I thought this kind of international shit is what the internet's all about:(

megalomania
November 12th, 2003, 08:58 PM
I don't know why, but I am curious as to exactly what the charges are, so I did a search... here is what I found:


The allegations about an attack on one of Prince Charles's staff have been met with astonishment. But male rape is far more common than you would think

The testimony of George Smith, Prince Charles's former valet, in a Sunday newspaper that he had been raped by another royal servant has catapulted a taboo subject into the headlines. Whatever the internal inquiry at St James's Palace discovers (hot tip: not much), male rape has not had such a high profile since TE Lawrence's account of his violation by the Turkish governor of Deraa in 1916.
"What for us is interesting is that here we have someone who is an ex-guardsman, trained in combat, saying he was raped by another man," says Adam Chugg, national coordinator of Survivors UK, a support service for male victims of sexual abuse and sexual assault. "In that sense, we hope that it's helpful for victims to see that male rape has got nothing to do with not being 'manly'."


The rest of the article goes on and on about male rape :( read for yourself at the Guardian
http://www.met.police.uk/sapphire/press_articles/unspeakable.htm

read also this article at some sort of gay fag news site as it tells even more
http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/111203charlesUpdt.htm

IDTB
November 13th, 2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by megalomania
As I see it once you let the dick in, you had better be willing to stick it out because I don't know of any men who would stop until they go off.
That would most definitely qualify for rape, as it should! I(being a man) would absolutely stop if she wished to. I don't know where you come from, but where I come from sex is suppose to be a sensual thing between two people. Am I the only one with these opinions/views?

<i>Wasn't meant to be an attack on megalomania.</i>

zeocrash
November 13th, 2003, 03:03 PM
i'd probably stop too,
women seem to be able to withdraw consent after it's all over now days, and because they're a poor defenceless woman, the court takes their story over the guy's story

mongo blongo
November 13th, 2003, 03:29 PM
I couldn't really give a shit if Charles is a turd burgler or not but we pay for them so lets laugh at them. :D

nbk2000
November 13th, 2003, 05:47 PM
A guardsman...in the Navy! ;)

I don't know about you, but if a bitch says stop 2 seconds before I nut...I ain't stopping! And neither would you.

'Course, because she said stop you automatically become the rapist, even though she pumped you full of liquor and lured you back to her place and showed you her sex-toy collection.

Once you're on trial, she'll come dressed in an ankle length flower print dress with frilly white lace around the neck high collar and sob about her lost innocence.

It's SOP for D.A's to coach the "victims" of such criminals as yourself to dress up like little miss Moffet.

As for the royals...:rolleyes: Centries of inbreeding and buggery have wrought their toll. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Camilla was a man in drag! Would certainly explain a lot of things, wouldn't it? :p

Nevermore
November 17th, 2003, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by nbk2000
As for the royals...:rolleyes: Centries of inbreeding and buggery have wrought their toll. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Camilla was a man in drag! Would certainly explain a lot of things, wouldn't it? :p

stupid me, i always have thought she was just an horse...
now turns that she is a MALE horse..
:D

xyz
November 17th, 2003, 06:42 AM
Honestly, who cares if prince charles is a fudge packer? Laugh at him if you want but really, do you care?

russian_chemist
November 19th, 2003, 05:53 AM
there is also a "fisting" scene.

Truth is, its up to him and the other man. Let them live how they want to. Also, if he was gay, I am sure no one would mind, nor would he go with a butler, he is the future king!

vulture
November 19th, 2003, 07:29 AM
Listen, the fucktard is being paid billions by the british taxpayer to have his lazy ass wandering about Buckingham palace, so the least thing he can do is enjoy the taxpayers with a juicy story IMHO.

Anthony
November 19th, 2003, 01:57 PM
Although I have no strong feelings towards the Royal Family (other than them being traditonal, a comforting thing in times of Euro-assault), I always feel compelled to defend them when people claim how much they "cost".

The thing is, although they are handed a budget every year by the government, it's something like £6m IIRC, certainly not billions. It sounds a lot, but those palaces don't maintain themselves nicely to impress tourists and state visitors, plus my local council *lost* that much money last year.

They also have to justify this money allowance, they're expected to do a certain amount of "work" - appearnces, charity things etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a hard life, far from it.

The royals generate large amounts of money in tourist revenue. They also own large amounts of land on which rent is paid, and unless I'm very mistaken, all goes straight to the government.

I do think they'd be a lot better off if they were independant of the government.

Before I get accused of being in love with the Royals, I'd say that I prefer to keep them as they are useful. Anyway, they do a lot less harm than the damn government.


On the "rape" thing, I think it'd be better to just not have sex with people who would say "stop, RAPE!" halfway through. Association with losers and all that ;)

Arkangel
December 3rd, 2003, 05:57 PM
Well, my contacts in the "palace scene" have finally told me that the official story going round westminster is that Charlie boy was shagging butler number one up the arse, when observed by butler number two - the complainant.

The new dirt is that he went to the press because he was JEALOUS!:)

arm
December 3rd, 2003, 06:22 PM
Contacts in the palace scene. Blimey Arkangel how did you manage to get palace contacts?:D

Arkangel
December 3rd, 2003, 08:38 PM
It's not what you know mate, it's WHO you know!

Even got a ticket to the state opening of parliament last year. I could have reached out and touched old queenie had I been so inclined, which I'm not. (It's amazing how shabby and old all the uniforms look when you get close to them - despite them looking so smart and sparkly on tv)

But anyway, that is definitely the current gossip in both the palace and houses of parliament!:p