Prince Charles, A Shirtlifter?

[Billy_Dean]

So what's going on with Charlie? Is he gay? Is Camilla a transsexual? She looks like one doesn't she? Is that why he gave Diana up? Have your say.



Prince Charles is in the middle of a gay-sex scandal and media frenzy that just won't quit.

The heir to England's throne spent Sunday night — just as he returned from a 10-day trip to India and the Persian Gulf — holding what some in the British press referred to as "crisis talks" with son Prince William, companion Camilla Parker Bowles and other aides to determine the next step in quelling the story.

For the past week, newspapers have been trumpeting a story being told by former palace servant George Smith, 43, who worked for Charles for 11 years until 1997.

Smith says he witnessed a sexual incident involving Prince Charles and a former male royal aide. He says he recorded what he saw on an audiotape and gave the tape to Princess Diana. Now, the tape is in the hands of Paul Burrell, Diana's former butler.

Last month, Burrell began publicizing his tell-all book, A Royal Duty. He mentioned the tape and said that revealing its contents would rock the monarchy.

Newspapers pounced on the story, and the allegations began appearing on various Web sites.

But before London papers could report the story, 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.

As the media interest escalated throughout last week, Charles issued a lengthy denial Thursday: "This allegation is untrue," and it "did not take place."

In his statement, he mentioned that the claim comes from a former royal household employee who "has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and has previously suffered from alcoholism following active service in the Falklands."

It said the employee — Smith — had made charges in the past "which the police have fully investigated and found to be unsubstantiated." Smith also claims to have been raped by the same aide.

On Monday, a former valet, Simon Solari, who worked for Charles and Diana for 15 years, came to Charles' defense, telling London's Evening Standard that the allegations "simply could not be true."

Also on Monday, a spokeswoman at Clarence House, the prince's official London residence, said there were no plans to take any legal action and no plans for the prince to make any public comment.

The prince was spending Monday and Tuesday privately at his Highgrove estate; his first public engagement this week is set for Wednesday at a memorial service at the Royal Hospital in Chelsea.

Although some British press reports say the scandal is strong enough to leave a black mark on the monarchy, Charles' spokesman, Patrick Harrison, says the royal is "unruffled" by it all.


:)

[TheDave]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

im sorry

wait, no i aint

[bigboab]

If everything goes to plan, he will be following an old Queen onto the throne. :lol:

[AussieSheila]

:) Well, personally I find it hard to believe. But if he is, he's certainly not the first in the Royal family and who really cares anyway? Leave the poor bugger alone, he's got enough crosses to bear. He might do it in fine style but it's gotta be a crappy sort of life.

:rolleyes:

Prince Charles finds an ancient wine bottle in the cellar of Windsor Castle. When he opens it a genie flys out and grants him a wish.

Charles is ecstatic as just that morning he had reversed his Range Rover over the Queen's favourite corgi and squashed it flat. He asks the genie to bring back the dog to life as the Queen would be furious and upset. The genie examines the dog which is splattered all over the drive and tells Charles that there is nothing he can do so he'd best chuck the dog in the dustbin.

Charles then asks the genie if he could make his girlfriend Camilla Parker-Bowles beautiful as the media were always poking shit at her looks.

The genie thinks for a moment scratches his head and says "On second thoughts get that f**king dog out of the bin again"!!!

;) :lol:

[bigboab]

Originally posted by AussieSheila@12 November 2003 - 00:12
Leave the poor bugger alone
Leave the puns to me thanks Sheila. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[AussieSheila]

:)

[Darth Sushi]

Shirtlifter--that's one I haven't heard. :lol: But it sounds a lot subtle than rump ranger! :D

[Skillian]

But before London papers could report the story, 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.

Just in case people don't know, this is the guy apparently caught in bed with Charlie.

It's so funny how the papers hint around the story giving you clues. There have been loads of pics printed of Charles and Fawcett together, with no real explanation of why the picture was there. It's all kinda stupid really as the internet has meant the death of secrets so anyone can find out anyway.

[SniperInTheShadows]

@ AussieSheila - roflmfao at that joke :-)

And, concerning the story, thank's for posting it here Billy_Dean as my mum phoned me over the weekend asking if I could find out what the story was as all the newspapers could do was hint at it due to the legal action preventing them from printing it, so now I can phone her tomorrow and let her know :-)

As for the story itself, it will do him more harm in the long run if he denies it now only to end up revealing it as true in the future, but given how some people can't except anything beyond their own views then it's kind of understandable that he would want to deny it if it is true.

I would not be surprised if it's true, not given his relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles who does not exactly look all that feminin lol

Sniper.

[j2k4]

So he swings both ways, huh?

I always thought Charlie's "World Cup" ears would have proved too tempting for some jimmy-stick jockey to resist grabbing.

Rumor has it Diana's fingerprints were found on them as well, so, who really knows?

Surely not Camilla? ;)

[vader]

no surprises , thats what one can expect from a top 10 f_cked up family :D King Fag me thinks...lol...Royal Weenie....

[Billy_Dean]

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/151103-charlie.jpg


:)

[UKMan]

Nothing surprises me anymore with that lot. Surprised they still have the amount of support they do - its a dying monarchy to be sure. If i want the truth about the Royals, i read the SUN - ha ha :D

[0blivion]

A bit of a misleading title,
even before this it was clear he wasn't going to be a king,
why else is his mother holding on to the throne by dear live.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by 0blivion@15 November 2003 - 18:25
A bit of a misleading title,
even before this it was clear he wasn't going to be a king,
why else is his mother holding on to the throne by dear live.
You mean why is she staying alive?


:)

[MagicNakor]

Nope. There've been a lot of noblemen who would rather other males. And some of them have been kings.

:ninja:

[Yogi]

I am all for merging the Dutch&English royal family.

To let them get used to eachother, we place them on a far away deserted island.

All their financial recources are frozen.

We let them play Paradise Hotel with My little eye-twist(if 1 leaves, all lose....).

The winners will be the couple that won't cheat on eachother for one week.

The winners may choose a good charity(not themselfes!!) for all the Money of both

family's.

Who would be a good host for this show??

A. Michael Moore
B. Rowan Atkinson
c. Dame Edna
d. Mike Myers as Austin Powers

Find a good name for the show??

A. The Royal Flush.
B. Big Brother Beyond
C. The big Bang
D. AnimalPlanet RoyalEdition

Any ideas for a good website??


RepublicYogi

[Darth Sushi]

Geez, I was just reading TimeLine and here's an excerpt about King Edward II:

"... His captors didn't want any sign of foul play, so they stuck a tube up his rectum and inserted a red-hot poker into his bowels until he died." Kate shivered. "He was also gay," Marek whispered, "so it was thought the manner ..."
Did this really happened to a King?

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Darth Sushi@15 November 2003 - 10:55
Geez, I was just reading TimeLine and here's an excerpt about King Edward II:

"... His captors didn't want any sign of foul play, so they stuck a tube up his rectum and inserted a red-hot poker into his bowels until he died." Kate shivered. "He was also gay," Marek whispered, "so it was thought the manner ..."
Did this really happened to a King?
Wow :o .

That was planned as a challenge on "Royal Flush-The Sequel!!"!!

Now i have to think of a new one, they don't know about....


JollyYogi

[J'Pol]

I am by nature a Republican, as such I have no sympathy for the "royal" family. I would happily do away with them tomorrow.

However is this thread and the replies to it suggesting that he is less fit for the job because of his sexuality ?

Are the derogatory terms about homosexuality acceptable ? I was under the impression there were rules about this sort of thing.

As I say I have no great love for the idea of inherited power or privilege. However the man's sexuality is neither here not there.

[UKMan]

Originally posted by J'Pol@15 November 2003 - 10:34
I am by nature a Republican, as such I have no sympathy for the "royal" family. I would happily do away with them tomorrow.

However is this thread and the replies to it suggesting that he is less fit for the job because of his sexuality ?

Are the derogatory terms about homosexuality acceptable ? I was under the impression there were rules about this sort of thing.

As I say I have no great love for the idea of inherited power or privilege. However the man's sexuality is neither here not there.
I dont give a monkeys about what his sexual preferences are. I just think the monarchy has outplayed its role. I dont see anywhere i have mentioned anything else.

As to your comments, its justified and as such, you are quite at liberty to express it to the mods if you feel it. I personally dont think so at this stage, unless he is here disguised as a member and feels pointed out or unless gay members of this forum take this thread negatively.

Thats a serious remark by the way and not intended to sound sarcastic.

As for the others and of course BD, only they can comment on why they posted.

Peace
UKMan

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by UKMan+15 November 2003 - 10:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (UKMan @ 15 November 2003 - 10:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@15 November 2003 - 10:34
I am by nature a Republican, as such I have no sympathy for the "royal" family. I would happily do away with them tomorrow.

However is this thread and the replies to it suggesting that he is less fit for the job because of his sexuality ?

Are the derogatory terms about homosexuality acceptable ? I was under the impression there were rules about this sort of thing.

As I say I have no great love for the idea of inherited power or privilege. However the man&#39;s sexuality is neither here not there.
I dont give a monkeys about what his sexual preferences are. I just think the monarchy has outplayed its role. I dont see anywhere i have mentioned anything else.

As to your comments, its justified and as such, you are quite at liberty to express it to the mods if you feel it. I personally dont think so at this stage, unless he is here disguised as a member and feels pointed out or unless gay members of this forum take this thread negatively.

Thats a serious remark by the way and not intended to sound sarcastic.

As for the others and of course BD, only they can comment on why they posted.

Peace
UKMan [/b][/quote]
I agree with most of what you say. Particularly with regard to the "monarchy".

However why would it have to be a gay member who takes offense. Do I also have to be black to take offense at "jokes" against black people.

Sorry I can&#39;t agree with you there old man.

[UKMan]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@15 November 2003 - 10:49
....
I agree with most of what you say. Particularly with regard to the "monarchy".

However why would it have to be a gay member who takes offense. Do I also have to be black to take offense at "jokes" against black people.

Sorry I can&#39;t agree with you there old man.
Point taken :)

Peace
UKMan

[Yogi]

But J&#39;Pol, where are those derogatory* remarks???


:blink: Yogi



*Definition
derogatory [Show phonetics]
adjective
showing strong disapproval and not showing respect:
He made some derogatory comment/remark about her appearance.

[Billy_Dean]

My sentiments too SG, where are these derogatory remarks? I think maybe JP*** is shit stirring here. He should remember his place, he&#39;s supposed to be the sensible one.


:)

[J'Pol]

Yogi

Shirtlifter, old Queen, rump ranger, jimmy-stick jockey, King Fag. These are the specific phrases which do not show respect - to homosexuals. If I have mis-read what any of them are supposed to mean then I apologise.

There are also the comments about his other half being a transsexual, or at least looking like one. I do not find her particularly attractive (I&#39;m sure she would feel the same about me) so what.
He made some derogatory comment/remark about her appearance.

However most importantly is the idea that he would be less fit for the job if he were to be homosexual or bi-sexual. How does that work.

[MagicNakor]

I was just stating that there have been other homosexual monarchs.

Some of them have been very good rulers. Others not. Just like every monarch - sometimes you luck out and get a good one.

:ninja:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@15 November 2003 - 11:17
I was just stating that there have been other homosexual monarchs.

Some of them have been very good rulers. Others not. Just like every monarch - sometimes you luck out and get a good one.

:ninja:
You were, as usual stating facts and taking a balanced view.

[Yogi]

Shirtlifter, old Queen, rump ranger, jimmy-stick jockey, King Fag. These are the specific phrases which do not show respect - to homosexuals. If I have mis-read what any of them are supposed to mean then I apologise

You did not misread. Apologies not needed.
I was just curious how you read....
I could make same remarks about Hetero&#39;s and no one would take it offensively....


However most importantly is the idea that he would be less fit for the job if he were to be homosexual or bi-sexual. How does that work.

I can&#39;t seem to find a reference for that either...........


HalfGay-Yogi

[Billy_Dean]

My, my, we&#39;ve got threads out there about sticking fingers up arses, looking at snot in hankies, and looking at toilet paper after wiping your arse, and you worry about an obviously humourous thread.

I think your real agenda is rather obvious.


:)

[J'Pol]

That would depend on what the remarks were and the context in which they were made, wouldn&#39;t it ?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@15 November 2003 - 11:29
My, my, we&#39;ve got threads out there about sticking fingers up arses, looking at snot in hankies, and looking at toilet paper after wiping your arse, and you worry about an obviously humourous thread.

I think your real agenda is rather obvious.


:)
Yes - I object to blatant homophobia.

[Billy_Dean]

This whole thread has been a light hearted dig at Charlie, and the royal family, it is in no way homophobic.


:)

[AussieSheila]

<_< I object to blatant homophobia too, but I don&#39;t see any here. I&#39;m pretty sure my homosexual friends, and I have a lot of them, would not take offense at this thread. And I think that what people do with their sex lives, regardless of who they are, is their own business and it&#39;s utterly disgusting that the media should have jumped on it the way they have, and always do. You wouldn&#39;t be a royal for quids would you?

edit: I object to non blatant homophobia as well. :)

[J'Pol]

Offensive material, whether for humour or not, remains offensive.

Bernard Manning is offensive. To those who don&#39;t know him he is a stand-up "comedian" who relies heavily on making "jokes" about, amongst other things, Asian people.

There are many others like him, I am sure everyone knows of at least one.

The fact that he does it in the name of comedy does not make it acceptable.

[Billy_Dean]

The fact that he does it in the name of comedy does not make it acceptable.

To you&#33;

I&#39;m pulling out of this thread, before someone complains to the mods again and gets me another suspension.


:)

[Darth Sushi]

J&#39;Pol, just PM a mod if you feel that strongly against this thread.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Darth Sushi@15 November 2003 - 12:04
J&#39;Pol, just PM a mod if you feel that strongly against this thread.
Darth

No offense, but why would I want to do that. I am merely expressing my opinion in the same way that everyone else is.

Some people find this type of thing funny, I do not. I am not black, Asian, homosexual or handicapped. However I have every right (in my opinion) to express my displeasure when people use these things as a source of "humour".

It only takes that we laugh these things off for them gradually to get more and more offensive.

This does not mean I have to "run to the teacher" about it. I am merely saying that I think it is wrong. If I am in a minority of one, so be it. I have been there before.

[j2k4]

J&#39;Pol-

I did not mean for my remark to be taken so seriously-sorry.

I do however get a large kick from watching PC people (not you, but surely the Prince) take great pains avoiding a label which supposedly no longer carries stigma.

Why do you think they do that, and why is it overlooked? :huh:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4@15 November 2003 - 21:24
J&#39;Pol-

I did not mean for my remark to be taken so seriously-sorry.

I do however get a large kick from watching PC people (not you, but surely the Prince) take great pains avoiding a label which supposedly no longer carries stigma.

Why do you think they do that, and why is it overlooked? :huh:
Prince Charles has no option, he has to be PC.

They do it because it is the way they were brung up. Their genes and environmental conditioning, very rigid from an early age (one supposes), does not allow them to be very different from what is expected of them.

They are not to be envied, though I have no problem in showing them a bit of scorn.

[3rd gen noob]

don&#39;t know if it&#39;s been mentioned, but King William III of Orange was gay

:lol:

try telling that to a pub full of rangers fans though :rolleyes:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@15 November 2003 - 21:32
don&#39;t know if it&#39;s been mentioned, but King William III of Orange was gay

:lol:

try telling that to a pub full of rangers fans though :rolleyes:
Point out he was raised a Catholic if you want some real fun.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@15 November 2003 - 20:35
Point out he was raised a Catholic if you want some real fun.
interesting, i never knew that :o

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+15 November 2003 - 16:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 15 November 2003 - 16:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@15 November 2003 - 21:24
J&#39;Pol-

I did not mean for my remark to be taken so seriously-sorry.

I do however get a large kick from watching PC people (not you, but surely the Prince) take great pains avoiding a label which supposedly no longer carries&nbsp; stigma.

Why do you think they do that, and why is it overlooked? :huh:
Prince Charles has no option, he has to be PC.

They do it because it is the way they were brung up. Their genes and environmental conditioning, very rigid from an early age (one supposes), does not allow them to be very different from what is expected of them.

They are not to be envied, though I have no problem in showing them a bit of scorn. [/b][/quote]
No, I&#39;m not wondering why they deny it-

I mean why do you think the fact of their doing so is overlooked by this media which so loves to hold certain feet to the fire?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+15 November 2003 - 21:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 15 November 2003 - 21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@15 November 2003 - 20:35
Point out he was raised a Catholic if you want some real fun.
interesting, i never knew that :o [/b][/quote]
His parents weren&#39;t, they were Protestant.

However he was apparently raised a Catholic on the instruction of Emperor Charles V.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+15 November 2003 - 21:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 15 November 2003 - 21:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@15 November 2003 - 16:30
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@15 November 2003 - 21:24
J&#39;Pol-

I did not mean for my remark to be taken so seriously-sorry.

I do however get a large kick from watching PC people (not you, but surely the Prince) take great pains avoiding a label which supposedly no longer carries stigma.

Why do you think they do that, and why is it overlooked? :huh:
Prince Charles has no option, he has to be PC.

They do it because it is the way they were brung up. Their genes and environmental conditioning, very rigid from an early age (one supposes), does not allow them to be very different from what is expected of them.

They are not to be envied, though I have no problem in showing them a bit of scorn.
No, I&#39;m not wondering why they deny it-

I mean why do you think the fact of their doing so is overlooked by this media which so loves to hold certain feet to the fire? [/b][/quote]
I think their reaction to the media and the world in general is affected by a sort of "royal" inertia.

The world has changed rapidly around them. However they, by their nature have not. So they really think that it is the late 40&#39;s and they can still control the newspapers, radio etc. In spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.

They do not realise that the only power or influence they have left is because of the money they have. It is this very lack of ability to adapt that will see them off and we will finally become a Republic.

[bigboab]

It would make a change or reading. Queen formerly Prince. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by j2k4@15 November 2003 - 21:24
J&#39;Pol-

I did not mean for my remark to be taken so seriously-sorry.

I do however get a large kick from watching PC people (not you, but surely the Prince) take great pains avoiding a label which supposedly no longer carries stigma.

Why do you think they do that, and why is it overlooked? :huh:
Because it does still carry a stigma.

:ninja:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MagicNakor+15 November 2003 - 21:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor &#064; 15 November 2003 - 21:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@15 November 2003 - 21:24
J&#39;Pol-

I did not mean for my remark to be taken so seriously-sorry.

I do however get a large kick from watching PC people (not you, but surely the Prince) take great pains avoiding a label which supposedly no longer carries&nbsp; stigma.

Why do you think they do that, and why is it overlooked? :huh:
Because it does still carry a stigma.

:ninja:[/b][/quote]
Ah-

Then though this air of presumption on the part of the media is of no real moment, we must act as though it is. ;)

Thanks MN.

I&#39;ve been waiting for you, apparently. :)

[lynx]

Had a singer on at the club I sometimes go to (just to make Jonno jealous he had TWO Peavey speakers), and (amongst others) he did songs by Elvis and Elton John.

The King and the Queen in the same night. :lol:

[MagicNakor]

I feel honoured j2. ;)

:ninja:

[vader]

King by day and Queen by night ,geeze next he&#39;ll be cuttin an alblum...King Pooot and the Stool Pushers or Bend over Charlie and the Shirt Lifters. Seriously though , I do not care who does what with who in their own relationships. What I do not like is how less than 2% of any population could recieve such attention on a subject that most folkes in the 98% norm don&#39;t even talk about on any givin day.And how marriage ( a holy union CREATED BY GOD---HELLOOOO) sanctified by church, now even by state(province) in modern times, can be fowled by simply confussing some words and betraying most of it&#39;s purpose, but I degress. Who know&#39;s maybe that will catch on in England and they&#39;ll get two King&#39;s ..DUH :lol: