Tape reveals Prince Charles had homosexual relationship with Michael Fawcett
banana
alt.gossip.royalty and stamped at '16:17:14' on 'Sun, 17 Nov 2002', Anne
Smith <wa...@mail.com> writes:
>I have recieved information from a very reliable source that the tapes
>at the centre of the St James Rape scandal allegedly contain evidence
>that Prince Charles had a homosexual relationship with Michael
>Fawcett. The allegation is made by George Smith who recalls walking
>into a room within St James Palace and catching the Prince of Wales
>and Michael Fawcett in a sexual act. This is the explosive revelation
>that St James Palace wishes to coverup. Knowledge of this incident was
>behind Diana's claim that Charles would never be King.
Many thanks for posting this, Anne. It's pretty much common knowledge among
those interested in such matters that 'Prince' Charles and Michael Fawcett
are in a homosexual relationship, but have you considered that this too may
to some extent be a red herring?
I say 'to some extent', because on the other side of the balance one must
observe that 'Prince' Charles and those who work for him *have* managed to
keep any *explicit* mention of the above fact out of the UK media. (This is
despite the fact that, although the idea of sex between a master and a
servant is utterly repulsive, the word is that their relationship is
consensual - although of course it may have started off non-consensual).
And when it does get mentioned, I doubt that they will manage to stop the
question being asked 'should someone be king who is in a sexual relationship
with someone who is guilty of what Michael Fawcett is guilty of'? Dunno if
you saw the story that 'Prince' Charles gave George Smith a silver picture-
frame. Then he asked him whose picture he was going to put in it. Mr Smith
replied that maybe he would put a picture of his wife in it. 'Prince' Charles
replied that he could put a picture of '"fucking" Michael Fawcett' (sic) in
it if he wanted. To say this reflected on 'Prince' Charles would be an
understatement.
BUT, be all this as is it may, we should not forget that CERTAIN MATERIAL
MENTIONED IN EARLY REPORTS IS NO LONGER BEING MENTIONED.
In particular:
a) ANOTHER RAPE was mentioned - namely a rape of a male servant working at
BUCKINGHAM PALACE, a rape that was supposedly INVESTIGATED BY THE POLICE, but
which THE SERVANT IS SUPPOSED NOT TO HAVE WANTED TO PURSUE.
and
b) the servant involved in the 'incident' (i.e. sex) between 'a member of the
royal family and a servant' was NOT identified as being the 'alleged rapist'
of George Smith, nor as being 'a senior adviser to Prince Charles', nor with
any of the other phrases used to mean 'Michael Fawcett'. The publication of
the idea that the servant who was 'caught' in the 'potentially highly
damaging' incident with the member of the royal family was Michael Fawcett
came LATER. And one of the first papers that published it - perhaps the very
first - was the 'Scotsman', owned by the same people (the Barclay brothers)
who own the London Ritz, which is in a business partnership with 'Prince'
Charles.
I would observe:
1) clearly an effort has been made to take the spotlight off of the other
rape, and for that matter off of the use of male prostitutes ('rent boys',
i.e. male child prostitutes) at St James's Palace and Buckingham Palace.
Despite the fact that this other rape was investigated by the police, no
editor has printed any details about that investigation, nor have they
printed, as far as I am aware, any official statement by police or CPS as to
why no charges were brought.
As damage limitation, a spotlight is allowed to play on one particular victim
only, namely Mr Smith, and attempts are then made to assassinate his
character. Yes he appears to have convictions for drunk driving, and to have
been sectioned, but no media commentator has made the point that he does not
appear to have what the authorities would call a record of dishonesty (e.g.
any conviction for theft, or any record of making statements in court that a
jury decided were false).
The ludicrous story has been printed that Mr Smith is in the habit of
imagining at every opportunity that men leap out from behind bushes and rape
him. Of course, it could well have happened that the Windsors *did* send men
to rape him, in order that he would then tell the police and not be believed.
Anyone who thinks that's highly improbable should think about the murders of
Hilda Murrell, Stephen Milligan, James Rusbridger, and of a large number of
people working at Marconi and the Royal College of Military Science - many of
whose murders involved sexual perversion.
But anyway, as far as any rape allegations are concerned, the media spotlight
is firmly on the rape of Mr Smith, when earlier reports indicated that
- at least one other rape occurred, and was known to the police, and
- an incident was known about involving a member of the royal family
and a servant - a sexual incident that could do irreparable damage
to the monarchy. It does not take much to speculate that this was
the RAPE of a servant by a member of the royal family.
>The scandal
>concerning the gifts being sold is merely an attempt by the Palace to
>deflect attention away form this revelation that has the potential to
>bring down the Monarchy.
Agreed. But if that is the 'top layer' of cover, the assimilation of Michael
Fawcett (who as 'everyone' knows is Prince Charles's homosexual 'lover') and
the 'member of the royal family' interrupted in a 'damaging incident' with a
servant is, in my opinion, a SECOND later of cover.
Why is there little explicit media interest in the victim of the other rape,
or indeed in the police investigation of that rape, or the reasons why no
charges were brought? Might it be that the victim has been 'disposed of'?
By 'explicit', I mean 'published'. For example before Mr Smith was
identified, it was published in the media that reporters had staked out his
house and so on. No such facts or allusions have been published in relation
to the other victim.
Lastly, it should not even be taken as read that the 'other rape' and the
'incident involving the royal and the servant' are the same.
Let's be clear - a) servants of the 'royal' family are treated like shit, and
b) servants of the 'royal' family know a HELL of a lot. There must have been
numerous occasions when servants have seen members of the 'royal' family
having sex with their 'lovers' or with prostitutes or whoever - just as some
people when having sex forget to close the door and it gets pushed open by
the family pet. This is on top of the fact that servants can put two and two
together - e.g. if Michael Fawcett is seen going into 'Prince' Charles's
bedroom late at night and not emerging until the morning, they can work out
that they might be doing something other than discussing what shirt he should
wear in the morning, or playing leapfrog. (Or I should say 'in the first half
of the morning', since he's known to change his clothes five times per day -
does anyone know what Nicolae Ceausescu's practice was in this regard?)
So even a few years ago there must have been hundreds and thousands of people
who knew that 'Prince' Charles and Michael Fawcett were in a sexual
relationship. There were presumably also quite a few people who knew about
the rape, but that is of course a much more serious matter. One is legal, one
is illegal.
Senior servants are encouraged to oppress junior servants...
>This information is known to Fleet Street
>however no newspaper wishes to be the first to reveal it.
'Why not?' is the question.
Here is a copy of my earlier article which appears not to be archived at
Google News:
Subject: 'Prince' Charles-&-boyfriend-MF-caught-in-flagrante - a red herring?
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:18:30 +0000
Message-ID: <Cksq$WAG7709Ew$Q...@borve.demon.co.uk>
***BEGIN COPY***
In article <709krWAB...@borve.demon.co.uk>, posted to
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '01:53:05' on 'Wed, 13 Nov
2002', banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes:
>The 'Scotsman' has stated that the incident reported to be 'so grave'
>that its disclosure 'could irrevocably damage the monarchy' was between
>"an alleged rapist in the Prince of Wales’s staff and a member of the
>Royal Family".
>
>Which shouldn't make us forget that George Smith is not the only alleged
>rape victim. Another rape allegation has also been reported, of a
>servant at Buckingham Palace.
>
>'The Scotsman', 13 November 2002:
>
><http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=1262692002>:
Hmm. Sometimes stuff gets published in the 'Scotsman' before it gets
published in the London-based papers. E.g. the arrest of then Home
Secretary Jack Straw's son for dealing drugs. (And one thing I've seen
mentioned in the 'Scotsman's' financial pages but never in the 'London'
financial pages is the 'Club of Paris' - the central global club of
State lenders, which may well need the OK from the 'Club of London'
['private' lenders] before it does anything...but I digress).
Anyway, about this story of the 'incident' between a 'member of the
royal family' and 'a servant' - an 'incident' which could apparently do
'irreparable' damage to the monarchy...
This came out in the press several days ago.
Then, AFTER the story had been out for a few days, it came out that the
'servant' involved was the same person accused of rape, namely M******
F******. This was released kind of quietly...
Early reports, e.g. of Mr Smith's evidence, certainly suggested that
a) M****** F****** is the alleged rapist; and
b) he is 'Prince' Charles's boyfriend.
But as for the 'incident', they did not suggest that he was the
'servant' involved in it.
So, is it true?
Let's also note that the OTHER rape allegation, involving a servant at
Buckingham Palace rather than St James's Palace, has stopped being
mentioned.
Well, what if the 'servant' involved in the 'incident' was NOT MF?
Prurient journalists might like to think that someone opening a door and
finding 'Prince' Charles and his boyfriend engaged in sexual congress
would be something that might do 'irreparable' damage to the
monarchy...but would it? Might it be a red herring, put out to obscure
something else, such as the RAPE OF A SERVANT (presumably a much
lower-down servant) BY A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY?
Guess who owns the 'Scotsman'? It's the same people who own the Ritz
Hotel in London. They are obviously well in with 'Prince' Charles - see
the London Ritz's big-time use of his logo in their marketing:
<http://www.theritzlondon.com>. (Such agreements involving the use of
the royal warrant in the marketing of a big London hotel obviously
involve the Windsor family 'receiving a consideration' - one would have
to be very naive to believe otherwise). The London Ritz is is well-known
for organising banquets for the royal family. For example, tonight there
will be a big banquet for 'Prince' Charles's birthday. (I've got a
strong feeling that if M****** F****** attends, as he presumably will,
news will soon leak out).
And the owners of the 'Scotsman' and the London Ritz are...?
The Barclay brothers, via the secretive Ellerman Investments. (The Ritz
is controlled by Ellerman Investments, which is owned by the Barclay
family).
***END COPY***
--
banana
Alvin H. White
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:52:46 +0000, banana
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Path: rwcrnsc54!rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net!attbi_slave51!attbi_master52!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!204.127.161.5!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!207.115.63.142!prodigy.com!rip!c02.atl3!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news.webusenet.com!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!borve.demon.co.uk!banana
>From: banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: alt.gossip.royalty,alt.conspiracy.princess-diana,uk.politics.misc,alt.talk.royalty
>Subject: Re: Tape reveals Prince Charles had homosexual relationship with Michael Fawcett
>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:52:46 +0000
>Lines: 231
>Message-ID: <n70T4MBu...@borve.demon.co.uk>
>References: <17bf2bcf.02111...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: borve.demon.co.uk
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1037714509 23303 158.152.12.77 (19 Nov 2002 14:01:49 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:01:49 +0000 (UTC)
>X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 S <SzPjHnyn9Ubx3mLzC4LQXjmmTz>
>Xref: attbi_master52 alt.gossip.royalty:43938 alt.conspiracy.princess-diana:5258 uk.politics.misc:210869 alt.talk.royalty:36588
>X-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:01:51 GMT (rwcrnsc54)
The Royal Family's involvement in the armaments manufacturer's and the
religionist's finance plot to trigger the 14th crusade against
'America defended by the United States' in which Diana was assasinated
to keep the fems from wetting the powder.
Joshua 8
With the European Union acting as the referee / judge / trial court.
And setting up a masculine military American aristocracy.
>the RAPE OF A SERVANT (presumably a much
>lower-down servant) BY A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY?
>
>Guess who owns the 'Scotsman'? It's the same people who own the Ritz
>Hotel in London. They are obviously well in with 'Prince' Charles - see
>the London Ritz's big-time use of his logo in their marketing:
><http://www.theritzlondon.com>. (Such agreements involving the use of
>the royal warrant in the marketing of a big London hotel obviously
>involve the Windsor family 'receiving a consideration' - one would have
>to be very naive to believe otherwise). The London Ritz is is well-known
>for organising banquets for the royal family. For example, tonight there
>will be a big banquet for 'Prince' Charles's birthday. (I've got a
>strong feeling that if M****** F****** attends, as he presumably will,
>news will soon leak out).
>
>And the owners of the 'Scotsman' and the London Ritz are...?
>The Barclay brothers, via the secretive Ellerman Investments. (The Ritz
>is controlled by Ellerman Investments, which is owned by the Barclay
>family).
>
>***END COPY***
>--
>banana
<a href="http://members.aol.com/GODSBRAIN">G.O.D.S.B.R.A.I.N.</a><br>
Louis Epstein
: Many thanks for posting this, Anne. It's pretty much common knowledge among
: those interested in such matters that 'Prince' Charles and Michael Fawcett
: are in a homosexual relationship,
No,it's a piece of scurrilous nonsense those delinquent
in their obligation to worship Royalty like to spread.
Big difference.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '16:05:17' on 'Tue, 19 Nov
2002', Louis Epstein <lep...@PUF.FCC.NET> writes:
>In alt.talk.royalty banana <banana@remove_this.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: Many thanks for posting this, Anne. It's pretty much common knowledge among
>: those interested in such matters that 'Prince' Charles and Michael Fawcett
>: are in a homosexual relationship,
>
>No,it's a piece of scurrilous nonsense those delinquent
>in their obligation to worship Royalty like to spread.
>Big difference.
Is just one of them 'royalty', or are you saying they're both queens and
should be worshipped? Will you stop worshipping them (if you worship
them now, that is) if they accept that it's true?
--
banana
B.B.
"banana" <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:n70T4MBu...@borve.demon.co.uk...
> In article <17bf2bcf.02111...@posting.google.com>, posted to
> alt.gossip.royalty and stamped at '16:17:14' on 'Sun, 17 Nov 2002', Anne
> Smith <wa...@mail.com> writes:
[snip]
One the basis of one post by an anonymous poster ( I got only one hit at
Google Groups when I searched for "Anne Smith") Neil constructs a whole
theory that he tries to sell as a fact. Conspiracy theorising at its best.
It has happened before in alt.conspiracy.princess-diana, Neil's personal NG
and pet. Jordan Sage it was called, then. Just feed the conspiracy theorists
with the right material and you will get a juicy "analysis".
Well done, Anne Smith.
B.B.
