Sponsored Links

[Julian]

Yesterday, The Guardian newspaper overturned a High Court injuction that prevented Prince Charles' former right-hand-man, Michael Fawcett, being named as the person who obtained a pre-emptive gagging order over another newspaper, the Mail on Sunday. (Source)

The Mail on Sunday had been planning to publish accusations levelled against Mr Fawcett by another ex-courtier to Prince Charles, but apparently, Mr Fawcett - by then a private citizen acting on his own behalf - rang a High Court judge on his car phone as soon as he (Fawcett) found out about the story, and got an injunction against publication on the grounds that it was probably libellous. This is highly unusual, even with relatively stringent British libel laws (to which, as a British citizen writing in Britain, I have to consider myself subject, even here, so please forgive me if I'm more than usually circumspect).

It is far more usual to wait until the newspaper goes to press, and then sue for libel based on what is published - the principle of "publish and be damned". But, the logic goes, the nature of the allegations are so serious that the delicate ears of the British public must be protected, lest they lose the remaining vestiges of their faith in the institution of the monarchy. (I wish.)

Then, last night, a few hours after the Guardian's court victory, Prince Charles' spokesman Sir Michael Peat made a formal public statement denying the Prince's involvement in the (as yet unspoken) allegations against him, part of the same man's story. (Source

That story, as far as I've been able to piece it together from what is in the public domain in the UK, plus some international Googling, is that Diana's former butler Paul Burrell got hold of a tape recording made by a former servant of Prince Charles.

This servant (I'm not supposed to know his name, but if someone else would do Google the words "Paul Burrell tape sex scandal" for me and post links here, I will have complied with the letter of our rather asinine laws) alleges, without corroboration, that he stumbled across an unnamed member of the Royal family engaged in a sex act with another of his servants, and that this second unnamed servant raped the first one (the one making the allegations on the mysterious tape). I don't know which event is supposed to have happened first, but if one or both are untrue, they are certainly libellous, and if the second is true, anyone involved in a cover up must surely be guilty of criminal conspiracy at the very least.

Supposedly Diana herself made the tape, the existence of which is not in question by anyone, even though it has not yet become public, and she allegedly believed that the allegations contained in it could "bring down the monarchy". Also allegedly, her belief that Charles would never be king was motivated by the accusations on the tape as much as any abiding dislike of her ex-husband.

Burrell had been keen to keep it secret, but the Royals didn't want to risk exposure, and initiated a prosecution for theft against Burrell. This removed any remaining pro-Royal sentiments Burrell had, helped by the huge sums on offer for publication of his memoirs, and he decided to write a book that indicated where the metaphorical bodies were buried. In reply, the Princes William and Harry demonstrated they really are the children of Chuck and Di ,by issuing a press statement condeming Burrell and claiming ownership of their mother's legacy for themselves. Clear so far? You couldn't make it up.

Coincidentally, last night on British TV, a documentary was shown about the younger brother of King George VI and Edward VIII, who was revealed to have been promiscuously bisexual, having affairs with many actors and actresses, including Noel Cowerd. So it's not as if there is no precedent for a Royal to swing both ways, as it were.

In effect, Prince Charles has publicly denied an allegation that has not actually been made yet - a ridiculous situation. Our media is tying itself in knots trying to cover a story of legitimate public interest - the alleged cover-up of an alleged male rape must fall into that category, even speculations on the sexual behaviour of the future king may not - without being able to mention either the people allegedly involved or the alleged activites that have allegedly taken place. (I'm doing some fairly complex verbal yoga myself, as you can tell.)

Now, allegations of same sex relationships among the current generation of Royalty is nothing new (or interesting) - Prince Edward, TV producer and name-dropper extraordinaire, had lots of "gay slurs" during his bachelor years, and even after them. Nor, any more, is homosexuality anything like as frowned upon as it used to be. Arguably, an "out" homosexual in the Royal Family might be a sign that they inhabit the 20th century, if not the 21st. But in the peculiar world that they inhabit, with its links to history and religion, such ideas must not be entertained lest the majesty of royalty be lessened.

I've been a republican (i.e I'm for Britain becoming a republic with an elected president) as long as I can remember, but it seems to me that republicanism is becoming the only thing that can save the Windsor family from themselves.

Added to that, the way that they have manipulated the press and the judiciary indicates to me that they not only still have too much real power, but that they are desperate enough to use it. Both of which has serious implications for the quality of British democracy.

Our politicians are forced into silence by the oath of allegiance that they have to take on taking office (Sinn Fein's absence from Westminster is only because they refuse to swear allegiance to a monarchy they want to be separated from). Our media are either gagged or mealy-mouthed for fear of being gagged, or even imprisoned.

I would forgive Americans if they thought the whole situation is a laughable demonstration of the downside to monarchy and limited free speech, because that's what I think too.

Apart from protecting myself by posting on a USA-based site, I'd be genuinely interested to hear the views of anyone not blinded by pro- or anti- monarchist sentiments, who are normally the most vocal in British debates on the royal family.

QUESTION FOR DEBATE:
Is the British monarchy a busted flush? What purpose does it serve?
Supplementary questions:
What steps can they take to get themselves out of this mess? Should they even try, or just bow out gracefully?