Quote:
Originally posted by Jim
This is what I don't get...
It was OK to talk about affairs with Diana and affairs with the Prince so...how is this different? Is it because he may have done something illegal? Is that what it is...you can't talk about the Royal Family having illegal dealings?
|
The big difference is that the Diana affairs were fact, whereas this is currently just speculation. Plus, Charles is next in line to the throne and Diana wasn't. I think if/when the UK press can find a way to substantiate the rumours they will have a field day.
Also, the difference between this and, say, Clinton, is that Clinton was elected but Charles will be the next hereditary monarch. If it had been an elected official - Blair for example - then I'm sure the story would already be all over the Sun/Mirror/News of the World, which are basically the UK equivalents of the Enquirer type of publication.