Who was the royal who allegedly raped that palace servant?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Seems everyone knows about it except me. If, as I'm led to believe, it could lead to the downfall of the monarchy I think we republicans should be told.

― 39 Steps + 40 Winks (39 Steps + 40 Winks), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, and wots Burrell'#s secret? Was Diana up the duff or something?

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:35 (twenty-two years ago)

it definitely wasn't the Duke Of Harringay

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:35 (twenty-two years ago)

It wasn't a royal, was it? I thought it was a palace servant raped by a superior? But what do I know, I'm just the Queen.

― Her Royal Highness Queen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I have no idea!

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)

The big story going around is that a servant witnessed a consensual sex act between a royal and another servant. Let's just say the Crown jewels complete with fleur-de-lis were getting a good polishing, under a f@wcett.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I knew that but who was it is the big mystery!

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:42 (twenty-two years ago)

So WHAT?!?!? If it was consensual, what's the big brouhaha about? Who cares? Royals have been dallying with servants since the dawn of time.

― Her Royal Highness Queen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:44 (twenty-two years ago)

It was 2 males though wasn't it? (not that that should make a blind bit of difference)

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:45 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah id be more surprised if a royal actually remained unfelched for their entire reign

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Pink the clues are all in the second sentence. It would be a big deal if the person were caught doing any kind of homosex owing to place in succession, mistress and two kids, duh.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

umm id like to withdraw the word "unfelched". permanantly.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

oh yes i think i get it now. *slaps forehead*

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Ah. RIGHT.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:49 (twenty-two years ago)

You know, really, I think having a mistress and murdering your wife (or having your wife bumped off, rather) come much higher on the scale of royal nastiness than merely being Seen To by an obliging manservant.

― Her Royal Highness Queen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Al Fayed to thread!

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:52 (twenty-two years ago)

ACtually, then again, having mistresses and bumping off inconvenient wives has been a royal mainstay since Tudor times. Never mind! If they'd just chopped off Diana's head, all would have been well and good.

― Her Royal Highness Queen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:53 (twenty-two years ago)

And as to the other, look what happened to Edward II

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:57 (twenty-two years ago)

You know, if it's OK for adultering princesses to keep their heads, then it's OK for heirs to the throne to be teabagged by manservants. So sayeth the Queen!

― Her Royal Highness Queen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:59 (twenty-two years ago)

haha a conspiracy theory which claims that
i. the royal family
ii. the british govt (labour)
iii. the british secret services
iv. the french govt
v. THE FRENCH SECRET SERVICES!!
are all in natural cahoots with one another = more than usually daft

blair: "m.chirac, i'm ringing you up to hand you the GREATEST AND MOST NAIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR POLITICAL BLACKMAIL IN THE HISTORY OF STATESCRAFT: here's my balls, here's the vice, over to you"

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I heard it wasn't consensual, that's why the "monarchy" is in "peril". In respect to the fleur-de-lis, would you consent?

Plus, Diana's secret is that Camilla was her mother.

Wow, I've never royal-gossiped before. It's quite refreshing to talk about others less fortunate than yourself.

― 39 Steps + 40 Winks (39 Steps + 40 Winks), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:28 (twenty-two years ago)

nine years pass...

dis ting

― Nilmar Honorato da Silva, Thursday, 6 December 2012 22:13 (thirteen years ago)

I don't understand what this thread's about, but:

haha a conspiracy theory which claims that
i. the royal family
ii. the british govt (labour)
iii. the british secret services
iv. the french govt
v. THE FRENCH SECRET SERVICES!!
are all in natural cahoots with one another = more than usually daft

not all that daft.

― how's life, Thursday, 6 December 2012 22:23 (thirteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.