Media coverage of Prince Charles gay sex scandal
The story in a nutshell: royal servant George Smith once claimed to have seen Prince Charles in bed with his aide Michael Fawcett.
There's more to it than that, but that's the core allegation. The British media are legally blocked from telling the story and naming names, though they can tell the story in one article and name names in another article. Charles has publicly denied that it ever happened. Some websites and European media outlets have reported the story in full.
American and Canadian media have picked up the story, but most outlets are playing coy, reporting Charles's nonspecific denial and feigning ignorance of the actual allegations. What did Prince Charles not do? Charles didn't do it - whatever 'it' was. The British papers have a good reason for not telling the whole story with names: the country's overly strict libel laws prevent them from doing so. But why would North American media leave out the specifics? It took me just a few minutes to piece together the whole story from internet sources. For whatever reason, they're choosing to keep the allegation under wraps for now.
The New York Times provides more detail but still requires readers to connect pieces of the puzzle: denial in one paragraph, allegation of "compromising sexual encounter" in another paragraph, gay angle in other paragraphs, names in still other paragraphs. [UPDATE: According to the Drudge Report, the New York Times website posted this article Friday afternoon with a more explicit account of the allegation, then pulled it down after twenty minutes. The original Times story read, "The allegation (although no one has said so publicly) has to do with purported sexual contact between Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, and Michael Fawcett, one of his closest advisers."] This article does nicely chronicle the escalation of the scandal.
The allegation (which no one here has aired publicly, because of Britain's tough libel laws) first became an issue last year during the trial of Paul Burrell, former butler to the late Princess of Wales, who was unsuccessfully prosecuted on charges of stealing possessions from the princess's estate after her death in 1997.
One item he was accused of stealing was a cassette tape that Diana had recorded several years earlier. On the tape, according to news reports, 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. More explosively, he also claimed to have witnessed a compromising sexual encounter involving a member of the royal family.
At the time, Mr. Smith's account threw the ravening British tabloid press into an almost unbearably frustrating quandary, once they figured out who was said to be involved.
Yearning to print the rumors but restrained by the law, 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.
Last month, Mr. Burrell began publicizing his tell-all book, "A Royal Duty," mentioning the now notorious tape and saying that revealing its contents would have disastrous consequences for the country. Newspapers seized on the issue again and the allegations began appearing on various Web sites.
On a completely tangential note — post-traumatic stress syndrome from the Falklands War?!?
The big question that hasn't been raised yet: how "disastrous" would full revelation really be for the royals? Would a bisexual king really be that big a deal in this day and age?
UPDATE: Several readers have pointed out that the Falklands War, though short as wars go, saw some brutal combat. Wikipedia has a good overview of the Falklands War. Reader Dave M. adds:
George Smith was in the Welsh Guards, and was on board the 'Sir Galahad' (a landing ship) when it was bombed by the Argentinean Air Force on June 8th 1982, along with its sister ship, the 'Sir Tristram' at Bluff Cove. Both ships were overloaded with men, stores and munitions, which they'd been transporting from an earlier landing site. Both caught fire and went up like rockets. 51 men died, and another 48 were injured. It was the worst single loss for the British during the Falklands campaign.
Mea culpa.
A bisexual king would have very interesting implications for the Church of England (and the rest of the Anglican communion), which is currently tearing itself apart over the issue of homosexual bishops.
After all, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in principle, is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Crown, which, since the time of Henry VIII, has enjoyed the titles Head of the Church and Defender of the Faith.
Public acknowledgement of a British monarch's bisexuality would render traditional Christian homophobia theoretically untenable in the Church of England, if it didn't cause the church itself to implode.
If he wasnt the heir to the british throne and one
of the most written about men in the world, he would be free to lead a double life, like a great many people do, most of them getting away with it.
But, Charles cant "get away with it".Getting caught is a most terrible thing. We, his subjects,
can never respect him again neither can we accept
him as our King. He HAS to leave public life and allow William to prepare to become our Monarch.
All these bullshit statements "he didnt do it
etc etc" have got to stop.He should have the decency and guts to admit it.....just like George Michael came clean.There is no other way.
Well the whole British Royal Family (except for the late Diana and her children) are essentially just a bunch of yucky, inbred Germans anyway. So really... who cares?
Besides - would anyone really honestly be surprised that private-boys'-school-educated Charles might have a bit of prior experience with mano-a-mano bump 'n' grind? A little slap & tickle or one-on-one pickle?
And anyway, other than having other men tug on them whilst he knelt, how else do you explain his huge satellite-dish sized ears?
Personally, I'm just surprised Charles isn't totally G-A-Y! Not that there would be anything wrong with that of course ;-)
