Key papers (that may incriminate Prince Philip in a sex scandal) not released

WilyCoyote · 05-01-2014 05:17AM #1

This is surely an attempt to stifle democracy and shore up the peccadiloes of the rich, famous and Royal. So the old rumours of Philip attending a pool party - where there was a lot of nudity and pot smoking - and an aristocrat (serving the food) just wore as mask and French Maid's apron .......... may just be true.
The below extract from tomorrow's London Independent:

Desire not to upset the Royal Family may be behind the Government's continued refusal to release key documents relating to the Profumo affair of 1963, according to a leading British historian. The affair led to the resignation of a minister, John Profumo, the Secretary of State for War, after he lied in response to claims that he had compromised national security by having a relationship with a prostitute also known to a Soviet military attaché.

Speaking to The Independent on Sunday last night, Richard Davenport-Hines, author of An English Affair, published last year, said he believes unfounded allegations made against the Duke of Edinburgh at the time of the scandal may continue to give rise to jitteriness in high places.

J_E · 05-01-2014 05:20AM

Desire not to upset the Royal Family

Huh. Screw 'em. Very much detached from the world we live in today. Monarchy as a concept is a little bizarre in today's day and age.

The Backwards Man · 05-01-2014 05:21AM

It's amazing what you can do with four simple words;

Believes
Unfounded
Allegations
May

tobothehobo · 05-01-2014 05:24AM

Doesn't bother me one bit. I don't pay for them, if the British people want them they can have them.

Galwayguy35 · 05-01-2014 05:25AM

Weren't there always rumours that he was a bit of a horndog back in the day.

kneemos · 05-01-2014 05:32AM

Most human of the bunch.

Guy:Incognito · 05-01-2014 05:34AM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Weren't there always rumours that he was a bit of a horndog back in the day.

Which is his right if he's not breaking any laws surely?

Should everyone's extra martial affairs be published in the newspapers?

Galwayguy35 · 05-01-2014 05:39AM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Which is his right if he's not breaking any laws surely?

Should everyone's extra martial affairs be published in the newspapers?

He's a public figure who was happy to live his lifestyle on the back of the British taxpayer, if he kept it in his pants there would be no story to tell.

WilyCoyote · 05-01-2014 05:44AM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Which is his right if he's not breaking any laws surely?

Should everyone's extra martial affairs be published in the newspapers?

I think if you decide on a life being a public figure, then you can't recoil in horror if your private life becomes an item of fascination by the people that are forced to pay your bills

DEFTLEFTHAND · 05-01-2014 05:46AM

Phil the Greek, seems like any other fun loving Naval officer. A profession who are known for living it up.

Guy:Incognito · 05-01-2014 06:04AM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

He's a public figure who was happy to live his lifestyle on the back of the British taxpayer, if he kept it in his pants there would be no story to tell.

So it's an outrage that he gets special treatment because he's a royal by not having a story printed but it's not an outrage that he gets special treatment because he's a royal by having his life printed about all the time?

No doubt there'll be a thread tomorrow about some celeb doing something or other that will have plenty of comments like "who cares" and " why do the papers print this ****".

J_E · 05-01-2014 06:09AM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So it's an outrage that he gets special treatment because he's a royal by not having a story printed but it's not an outrage that he gets special treatment because he's a royal by having his life printed about all the time?
.

Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?
(took a few times to understand the sentence)

I agree with your sentiments though. I think it's especially strange Irish posters are treating these menial events as any sort of relevant news. Even celebrity stuff is relatively more worthy to talk about than these silver spoons.

calanus · 05-01-2014 06:49AM

sounds like the premise to eyes wide shut....

Phill Ewinn · 05-01-2014 07:06AM

Adds Prince Phillip as Facebook friend

Frankie Lee · 05-01-2014 08:48PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM_RlWkE52w

Major question marks but to be fair is sexuality would have to be somewhat messed up in the first place if you are going to marry your cousin.

Frankie Lee · 05-01-2014 08:58PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM_RlWkE52w

Major question marks but to be fair is sexuality would have to be somewhat messed up in the first place if you are going to marry your cousin.

Pumpkinseeds · 05-01-2014 10:23PM

Ahh come on, everyone likes a bit of naughty kinky fun;), leave the old guy alone:D

wazky · 05-01-2014 10:26PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Ahh come on, everyone likes a bit of naughty kinky fun;), leave the old guy alone:D

He's boning the Queen and the swans, how more kinky can you get?

Pumpkinseeds · 05-01-2014 10:27PM

wazky wrote: »

He's boning the Queen and the swans, how more kinky can you get?

I'd say it's a very long time since he boned anything:D

Manach · 05-01-2014 10:34PM

Given his highness known penchant for not giving a damn on other people's opinion and any form of PCism, he'd likely have more backbone than most posters on AH.

anncoates · 05-01-2014 10:35PM

Was anybody else able to instantly (and correctly) narrow down the starter of the thread to about four possible people just by reading the title?

Femme_Fatale · 05-01-2014 10:51PM

Manach wrote: »

Given his highness known penchant for not giving a damn on other people's opinion and any form of PCism, he'd likely have more backbone than most posters on AH.

Political correctness was originally about not being an asshole to people for being different. Being so devoutly christian, surely you wouldn't have a problem with that? It seems pretty close to what Jesus Christ espoused.

WilyCoyote · 05-01-2014 10:59PM

wazky wrote: »

He's boning the Queen and the swans, how more kinky can you get?

He should have boned Michael Fagin .......... with a boning knife ......... for his bedside manner. But he couldn't as he slept six doors down the corridor - presumably alone.

humanji · 05-01-2014 11:05PM

Manach wrote: »

Given his highness known penchant for not giving a damn on other people's opinion and any form of PCism, he'd likely have more backbone than most posters on AH.

Don't insult other users.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Political correctness was originally about not being an asshole to people for being different. Being so devoutly christian, surely you wouldn't have a problem with that? It seems pretty close to what Jesus Christ espoused.

Don't make it personal.

Duck Soup · 05-01-2014 11:05PM

Well, if we're going to get into the alleged business, it's alleged that Phil The Greek has two children by one lady (not the Queen) in England and two more by another lady in France. Furthermore, it is also alleged that Prince Andrew - who looks nothing like anyone else in the family - was the result of a liaison between a royal equerry and Liz, aboard the Queen Mary. It is further alleged that when the Queen found she was pregnant (her marriage was on the rocks at the time and it was well-known that Phil and Liz had long ceased bumping uglies), a visit to the Queen Mary was hastily organized for Phil, so it could appear he was the father.

It is also alleged that Prince Andrew is bi, and the reason for him and Fergie divorcing is that he's HiV positive. It's also alleged that Prince Edward is unequivocally gay and that as early as his late teens/early 20s, the Palace was fabricating fictitious romance stories to be fed into the press, such as him supposedly dating Ulrika Jonsson. Not forgetting Lord Louis Mountbatten's supposed proclivity for foreign teenage boys.

And that's just the tip of the royal allegation iceberg. The problem for the royals is two-fold. Firstly, they have a long, long record of indiscriminate shagging, going back to the turn of the last century and the Prince of Wales of the time. Secondly, they have a long history of successfully burying stuff - which is understandable. The problem is when you put the two things together. Much true stuff has gone unreported or investigated, so when a false story rears its ugly head, there's no way of knowing its veracity or not, because for a hundred years or more, all stories have been hidden, quashed or denied.

Frankie Lee · 05-01-2014 11:13PM

Duck Soup wrote: »

Well, if we're going to get into the alleged business, it's alleged that Phil The Greek has two children by one lady (not the Queen) in England and two more by another lady in France. Furthermore, it is also alleged that Prince Andrew - who looks nothing like anyone else in the family - was the result of a liaison between a royal equerry and Liz, aboard the Queen Mary. It is further alleged that when the Queen found she was pregnant (her marriage was on the rocks at the time and it was well-known that Phil and Liz had long ceased bumping uglies), a visit to the Queen Mary was hastily organized for Phil, so it could appear he was the father.

It is also alleged that Prince Andrew is bi, and the reason for him and Fergie divorcing is that he's HiV positive. It's also alleged that Prince Edward is unequivocally gay and that as early as his late teens/early 20s, the Palace was fabricating fictitious romance stories to be fed into the press, such as him supposedly dating Ulrika Jonsson. Not forgetting Lord Louis Mountbatten's supposed proclivity for foreign teenage boys.

And that's just the tip of the royal allegation iceberg. The problem for the royals is two-fold. Firstly, they have a long, long record of indiscriminate shagging, going back to the turn of the last century and the Prince of Wales of the time. Secondly, they have a long history of successfully burying stuff - which is understandable. The problem is when you put the two things together. Much true stuff has gone unreported or investigated, so when a false story rears its ugly head, there's no way of knowing its veracity or not, because for a hundred years or more, all stories have been hidden, quashed or denied.

A good article on Andrew here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361039/Prince-Andrew-girl-17-sex-offender-friend-flew-Britain-meet-him.html

greenflash · 05-01-2014 11:41PM

Frankie Lee wrote: »

A good article on Andrew here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361039/Prince-Andrew-girl-17-sex-offender-friend-flew-Britain-meet-him.html

For 'good article' read 'Daily Mail' article.

As for the allegations, if someone can't even get the name of Betty's boat right, I'd have serious reservations about the rest of the detail.

annascott · 05-01-2014 11:42PM

Prince Philip is 92 years old. Something which may or may not have happened 50 years ago has no relevance today and raising it can only cause harm. Leave them alone.

WilyCoyote · 05-01-2014 11:44PM

annascott wrote: »

Prince Philip is 92 years old. Something which may or may not have happened 50 years ago has no relevance today and raising it can only cause harm. Leave them alone.

Shoot that line to Simon Wiesenthal

Frankie Lee · 05-01-2014 11:46PM

greenflash wrote: »

For 'good article' read 'Daily Mail' article.

Did you read it?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/13/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein

Guy:Incognito · 05-01-2014 11:49PM

Manach wrote: »

Given his highness known penchant for not giving a damn on other people's opinion and any form of PCism, he'd likely have more backbone than most posters on AH.

More front bone too I'd say. :-)

Key papers (that may incriminate Prince Philip in a sex scandal) not released

Comments