Prince Charles

[Sarah_Jayne]

okay firstly..we have the internet too so it isn't like people don't know what the rumours are meant to be.

Secondly, every country has libel laws. In this one anyone can apply for a court injunction. In the States you can get gag orders too.

Thridly, the person who is said to have made these claims is known to have mental health issues and it is widly thought that these claims aren't exactly true.

Lastly, most people really couldn't care less.

[urb]

I've searched the net and I still can't find any details of what this story is about.

The main thing bugging me is the freedom of speech issue.

Details of the affair have been published in a Scottish newspaper, which is not subject to the same legal restrictions as newspapers in England and Wales.

"Mental health issues" could mean anything. 1 person in 3 suffers from some kind of "mental health issue" at some time in their life. It could be anything from mild depression, right up to being a raving sociopath.

[Sarah_Jayne]

well, they had an injunction and then the injunction was partially over turned ..which is why we know the name of the servant.

It is a libel issue, not a Royal issue. Anyone can get such an order if a judge rules in your favour. It does help to have the money to do it but you can and people do.

Trust me, they will print it. They are just waiting for someone in another country to so that they can report it as something someone else said. That way they are in a little bit less legal hot water when the alligations prove to be unfounded and the libel lawsuit starts.

[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?

[Jim]

And...is it only the royal family that this applies to? The start of the newscast I saw was "There is a story about the Royal Family that is so bad, it is illegal to talk about it". And then the US reporter started talking about Prince Charles fucking some guy in the ass. And like I said, the British reporter could only nod or shake his head.

[docholly]

Originally posted by urb
[b]Basically at a time when the more fundamentalist bigoted sections of the Anglican Church of England are foaming at the mouth with the ordination of a gay bishop in America, it would be very amusing if the future Keeper of the Anglican faith (as the monarch is always the head of the English Church) were to swing both ways.

Probably done as protection against multi-million dollar law suits that the Vatican is now paying..

..good thing there wasn't Electronic Media in the 16, 17 and 1800's over there.. what a "jolly good" show that would have been..

Of Course the church of England was started so Henry VIII could have more than 1 wife, be they from divorce or beheading.. and certainly the double standard applies as didn't Edward VIII give up the throne for Wallis Simpson because she was divorced, not because she was American? How does Charlie plan to slide Camilla in, as his royal consort???

It was OK to talk about affairs with Diana and affairs with the Prince so...how is this different?

Adult webmasters view being bi or gay as a content opportunity.. the rest of the world is still pretty much Homophobic. Quite frankly i think his male lover, Michael Fawcett looks a hell of a lot better than Camilla.

the Sun posted an article about how Camilla had lost her Champion in the palace when Fawcett left the Prince's service.. perhaps a 3some was more likely!!

Here's the Sun article with the Timeline:

Timeline

I guess Charlie didn't like looking across the breakfast table at Harry and seeing the eyes of his ex-wife's lover staring back at him, so Harry was shipped to a Sheep station in Oz. Must be to prepare him for his Military Service that is coming up.

|rasta|

[Thumbler]

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.

[MrMaryLou]

The Royals I am thining sitcom all the way

[urb]

Originally posted by MrMaryLou
The Royals I am thining sitcom all the way

We've already got a sitcom called "The Royle Family"

http://www.phill.co.uk/comedy/royle/

[MrMaryLou]

I think it would make a great reality show here in the US let see we had the prince of beverly hills lets see how about the pumping prince

[Sarah_Jayne]

also, as was just pointed out on something I was listening too, it isn't because of Charles that things can't be said. It is because of the other man..he is the one that took out the injunction. Which has meant that the Royals themselves can't say anything in public until it is dealt with by the courts.

So, it is a 'normal' joe silencing the Royal family.

[doublep]

Originally posted by urb


The main thing bugging me is the freedom of speech issue.

Forget the fluff Urb you will find a few others they don't want you to know either here http://www.gregpalast.com/