24 December 2003

Santa's Little Headcase

The Queen is said to be distraught after Princess Anne's dog attacked a corgi of hers which later died of its injuries. The same bull terrier that attacked two children walking in a park during 2002 is believed to be responsible.

Princess Anne was treated leniently after the 2002 attack and her dog was not destroyed despite the injuries caused to the children. The defence at the time, without giving any explanation for the dogs violent behaviour, said Dotty was a good natured dog "lacking in malice". Dr Roger Mugford said the bull terrier should not be put down and described her as "an utterly placid, playful dog". His web site claims he has the solution to biting dogs:


It also touts his services as a 'skilled and experienced expert witness', just what you need to keep your psychotic attack dog off doggy death row, for a fat fee no doubt:


The family of the children mauled in the last attack were angry with the sentence and believed the animal should have been put down as it posed a clear danger. Perhaps Mr Mugford should seek some doggy psychology lessons from them as they appear to be significantly more 'expert' than him. Whether his expert testimony borders on perjury is something that will no doubt be overlooked, although it will surely be raised by the prosecution next time he poses as an 'expert' to save homocidal mutts with rich owners.

More information:
BBC News - Anne's dog 'kills Queen's corgi'
Princess Anne fined for dog bite

22 December 2003

Windsors 'nobble' Diana inquest

There is nothing the Windsors hate more than independent public scrutiny of their behaviour. When wrongdoing is alleged in Prince Charles' household, it is his "good friend" and employee, Michael Peat, that he appoints to carry out an "independent" investigation.

Some six years or so after the death of Princess Diana, the coroner appointed to investigate has finally set a date for the inquest which it is confirmed will commence on the 6th January 2004.

However, unlike normal inquests, this will be far from independent.

The Coroners Act 1988, the law governing the appointment of coroners, and the conduct of inquest states at s.29:

(2) The coroner of the Queen's household shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of inquests into the deaths of persons whose bodies are lying
(a) within the limits of any of the Queen's palaces; or
(b) within the limits of any other house where Her Majesty is then residing.

(3) The limits of any such palace or house shall be deemed to extend to any courts, gardens or other places within the curtilage of the palace or house but not further; and where a body is lying in any place beyond those limits, the coroner within whose district the body is lying, and not the coroner for the Queen's household, shall have jurisdiction to hold an inquest into the death.

Diana's body was not found within the limits of a Royal Palace, it was found in a wrecked Mercedes car in a tunnel in Paris. Clearly subsection 3 states that a normal coroner should have been appointed. One may therefore ask why a Royal Coroner has been appointed instead.

Subsection 4 provides a possible answer.

(4) The jurors on an inquest held by the coroner of the Queen's household shall consist of officers of that household, to be returned by such officer of the Queen's household as may be directed to summon the jurors by the warrant of the coroner.

There we have it. A nobbled jury. The Windsors are going to be permitted to hand pick the jury that will decide (inter alia) whether Diana's claim that a senior Royal would kill her in a car accident is true.

The law relating to the appointment of a Royal Coroner has been completely ignored so that a nobbled Coroner AND jury can be appointed.

Once again the Windsors are rigging the system to ensure no inquiry is indepedent. One wonders what they are trying to conceal this time?

More Information:
BBC News - Date set for princess's inquest
BBC News - Q&A: Diana and Dodi inquests
HMSO - Coroners Act 1988 s29

05 December 2003

Queen bans Mirror from palace

One of the major problems with our constitution is the inevitable confusion between the Queen as an individual and the Queen as sovereign. The Queen is now barring the Mirror Newspaper from state functions as a result of a report it made about her and her family's private life.

A Mirror reporter had secured a job working as a footman at Buckingham Palace prior to the visit of President Bush. Not only was this highly embarrassing from a security viewpoint, the journalist also gave intimate details of life at Buck House and Windsor Castle including the fact that:
  • Prince Andrew is universally detested, he shouts "fuck off" at staff when they come into his room in the morning, and gets upset if they don't bow low enough when he emerges from his Aston Martin.
  • Prince Edward has teddy bears on his bed
  • the Queen uses "Tupperware"
The Queen later gained an injunction to stop further publication of the Mirror journalist's reports and both parties came to a settlement.

However, the Queen has now blocked the Mirror from sending journalists to public events at the palace.

A journalist who arrived at the palace to cover David Beckham's OBE was refused entry.

Asked if the Beckham exclusion was revenge for the Mirror story, the Queen's press secretary Penny Russell-Smith replied: "I think that would be a logical assumption, yes."

In effect the Queen is taking revenge for the Mirror's reports on her personal life, by blocking access to events that are carried out by her as Head of State.

These are public events paid for by public money. It is not for the Queen to decide who attends, especially not if that decision is based on her personal problems. Once again the Queen is treating this country like her personal property.

The Mirror - Queen Bans Mirror from Palace
The Mirror - Our Man in the Castle: Still Wide Open
The Mirror - Our Man in the Palace: My Life as a Footman

27 November 2003

This is what happens when people get to vote

Royals are rarely in danger of getting voted out of office, largely because they aren't subject to having to worry about people hating the sight of them, because they keep their well paid "jobs" however badly they do them.

On the rare Occasions that people do get to voice their opinions in a ballot, one gets an idea of quite how unpopular these people are.

On the 26th November 2003 Edinburgh University students voted on a motion to remove Prince Philip as chancellor of the university.

1000 students turned up the for meeting (the highest turnout in living memory) and had their say the good old democratic way.

And voted to remove Prince Philip.

However true to Royal tradition, the University remains resolute in its support of Philip and refuses to even consider a change.

Democracy in action in Britain today.

See more:
BBC News - Students seek royal resignation
EUSA - Biggest turnout in memory as AGM votes

06 November 2003

The Royal Scandal. What we can and can't tell you

Many people are currently visiting this site and many are contacting us asking for details about a current Royal scandal. For legal reasons we can't give the full story. Here we will summarize what has been published, and provide links to what has not. Within the next 5 minutes you will know exactly what it is that the Royal Family are trying to keep from you.

The trial of Paul Burrell, Diana's butler, was stopped in November 2002 after a single phone call from Prince Charles to the judge of the trial. Prince Charles claimed that the Queen had suddenly remembered details of a conversation she had with Paul Burrell shortly after Diana's death. During this conversation, Burrell is said to have told the Queen he would be taking some items for safe keeping. This revelation lead to the ending of the trial, despite the fact that the statement by Prince Charles was legally nothing more than hearsay. The Queen or Prince Charles was never asked to back up this statement in writing, or under oath. Legally speaking, this is unprecedented. Anybody else coming forward with such 'evidence' at a late date may well be charged with wasting police time for not mentioning it earlier, and would certainly be required to sign an affidavit under threat of perjury.

The press began to speculate that the Queen and Prince Charles had wanted the trial stopped because Burrell as part of his defence was about to make revelations that would shake the monarchy, and possibly endanger its future. Burrell had claimed as much.

Slowly, details of these allegations have begun to surface.

Here is a summary, links to further sources of information follow.

There are actually 2 allegations.

The first is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal is alleged to have male raped George Smith, another palace servant. George Smith later reported the alleged attack to Police and it is suggested that the claims have been recorded on various video tapes possibly by Diana. George Smith later withdrew his complaint when questioned by Police. He was also given a £38,000 pay off by Prince Charles, apparently unconnected with the withdrawl of his complaint.

The second allegation is that a senior and close aide to a senior royal was found in bed with that royal by a servant. Both the royal and the servant are male. This allegation is also said to have been recorded by Diana.

It must be noted that these are at present just allegations. No court of law has ruled on their veracity. However, the royal family and their 'friends' have abused all legal precedent to make sure no court gets a chance.

A senior royal servant has recently obtained an injunction against the Mail on Sunday (and now other newspapers) prohibiting them from publishing this story complete with the names of the alleged participants, on the grounds that it is defamatory. When the injunction was issued, another was then slapped on the Guardian newspaper to stop them even naming the person in whose name the injunction was issued. However, that was apparently overturned, revealing that it was Michael Fawcett, 'trusted aide' to Prince Charles. A senior royal is also said to have written a letter to the Mail on Sunday asking that it not publish the story.

At present the injuction is in force, but is being fought by the newspapers. It is unprecedented for a court to grant such an injunction. The usual course of action for defamation is to sue for damages after such a statement has been made. A defence to defamation is truth, it is not defamatory to state the truth. The newspapers believe they have sufficient evidence and are prepared to publish on that basis, facing enormous damages claims if it is later held to be untrue. At present they are being prevented from doing so. Even more unprecedented is that much of the court's proceedings were held in private with the press and public excluded on request of the Fawcett's lawyers. Is justice being abused? Who knows when it is conducted in private. It is certainly not seen to be done.

At some point the court must decide whether such a statement is true, and libel is one of the few civil actions where a jury is required. The legal situation could be interesting, to say the least. As with the Burrell trial, it appears that legal precedent and the rule of law is being discarded to keep the Windsor's dirty secrets secret a little longer.

Clearly revelation of such a secret, and the fact that Diana was collating evidence of these secrets that the Palace is so keen to hide, will further speculation that Diana's death was no accident. Some have suggested that this evidence may have formed part of a custody battle, if Diana had have lived long enough.

Once again Diana's death has created a legally dubious situation. Firstly there must be an inquest when a British Citizen killed abroad is returned home. This inquest has been opened but then adjourned, and some 6 years after her death there are no plans to re open it.

To add further controversy, the Royal Coroner has been appointed. However Diana was not royal (her royal status was removed before her death as a result of her divorce) and she was not found dead in a royal palace. Therefore there would appear to be no legal course to appoint a Royal Coroner. However this is exactly what has happened. Why is this suspicious? Well, an inquest usually has a jury of ordinary members of the public. However a Royal Inquest has only hand picked members of the royal household. A nobbled jury? Add it all together and there is a nasty stench. No wonder the Royal Family are trying to keep you, the people who pay for their extravagant lifestyle, in the dark.

Whether people are gay or bisexual is neither an issue nor a scandal as far as we're concerned. The real scandal is whether any close personal relationship resulted in serious allegations of rape being 'made to go away' (as Fiona Shackleton, Charles's lawyer, might say).

More information
The Sun - Royal in Bed with 'Flunkey'
The Guardian - Guardian royal case to begin in private
The Independent - Royal servant allegations appear on website
Republic.org.uk - What was the 'Mail on Sunday' story that was suppressed?
Alt.Gossip.Royalty - Excellent Usenet source of royal scandal

BREAKING NEWS - 15:52 6 Nov 2003
The Guardian - Guardian victory
Guardian can now reveal that the servant who obtained an injunction agaist the Mail on Sunday to prohibit publication of a story is Michael Fawcett, a former servant to Prince Charles. The injunction against the Mail on Sunday remains in force for the moment.

BREAKING NEWS - 22:17 6 Nov 2003
The BBC - Clarence House Statement
Michael Peat, the man who cleared Prince Charles and Michael Fawcett of any wrongdoing in the inquiry into the 'gifts' scandal reads a statement denying that the stories are true.

03 November 2003

The genetically modified prince

From the Daily Express, 1/11/2003

"He has been called a crank, adulterer and if often derided for talking to plants.

But now Prince Charles has come under the most astonishing attack – by being labelled an “inbred”.

The world-famous fertility expert Lord Robert Winston slammed the Prince for his blue-blood heritage which has led to “generations of inbreeding”.

Television scientist and Labour peer Professor Winston said that this made Charles a “genetically modified organism”. In the past, Charles had been portrayed as an eco-babble spouting aristocrat interested in alternative religion and medicines, organic food and traditional architecture. He has been lampooned for his obtrusive ears and ridiculed for a history of unprovoked outbursts – and the admission in a 1986 TV documentary that he talked to plants.

But n an attack on Charles’s “misguided” campaign against genetically modified food Prof Winston questioned the heir to the throne’s genetic make-up.

Prof Winston said: “It is outrageous that the Prince of Wales has led a misguided campaign against GM which is largely instinctual. It is an odd protect by Prince Charles seeing that, after generations of inbreeding, he himself is one of the most genetically modified organisms on the planet.

Prof Winston’s comments came in a lecture to 350 students at the University of Bath, Somerset. He showed two slides of Charles drinking Assam tea and receiving a carnation, which he claimed were both genetically modified plants."

See also Prince Charles is one of the most genetically modified organisms on the planet

28 October 2003

'Smithgate' could be end of the monarchy

The Paul Burrell trial aired much of the Windsors dirty laundry in public. The airing was cut short when the Queen famously "remembered" that Burrell had told her that we was going to keep some of Diana's personal belongings for safe keeping.

A trial on which hundreds of thousand of pounds had been spent on had been stopped by one phone call from the Queen, presenting evidence she'd refused to give when asked by Burrell's defence team.

Once again, allegations of extremely unpleasant royal acts are back in the news, this time accompanied by suggestions that if they ever reach the light of day the monarchy could be fatally damaged.

It appears the Royals are now considering spending £5m (taken from your taxes) to silence Burrell, this time in the form of a bribe, rather than a car crash.

The Scotsman - 'Smithgate' could bring down the monarchy
The Guardian - What the butler (and a few other people) knows but you don't

27 October 2003

New queen sculptor previously worked for Saddam

The Queen has unveiled a new sculpture of herself in Windsor Great Park.

She is portrayed as she looked in the early 70s, riding a horse.

The firm producing the statue, Morris Singer of Lasham, near Alton, Hampshire are no strangers to working with unelected heads of state.

In the 1980s Morris Singer helped create a statue of Saddam Hussein, as another ego maniac pissed away public funds on shameless self-promotion, whilst many of his people lived in poverty.

Of that previous customer, Morris Singer director Chris Boverhoff loyally stated

"We are of course pleased to be associated with such a fine piece of work and we are justly proud of the craftsmanship that went into it, but like right-thinking people the world over we deplore the regime that Saddam created and presided over."

Morris Singer was of course happy to take Saddam's money.

More information:
BBC News - Queen unveils statue of herself
The Telegraph - UK firm may have a hand in Saddam's fall

20 October 2003

Burrell claims Diana feared car crash plot

Ever since the death of Diana, it was inevitable that there would be speculation that she was murdered.

Motives for this 'murder' are various, Mohammed Al Fayed claims that his son Dodi and Diana were engaged and that she was killed by the British establishment who could not tolerate the mother of the future king being married to a muslim. Others speculate that she was pregnant.

Burrell claims that Diana believed she would be killed to smooth the way for Prince Charles to become king. If that was the intention then it hasn't been overly successful.

At present there has still been no public enquiry or inquest into the death of Diana, a death which does appear to have some suspicious circumstances.

One must also consider that Burrell is currently writing a book. It seems curious that such an apparently important document has only just been released by him.

Ultimately its seem clear that if anything illegal did happen in the tunnel in Paris, its unlikely the British authorities believe the British people have any right to know the truth.

More Info
BBC News - Diana 'feared car accident plot'
Coverups.com - Princess Diana's Death

13 October 2003

Dutch prince to marry former gangster's moll

The Dutch royal family is involved in a scandal as it emerged that one of its members is to marry someone considered so unsuitable by the Dutch government that they have refused to sanction the marriage. Prince Johan Friso is to marry Mabel Wisse Smit, a former gangster's moll.

A Dutch government press release on the subject stated:

"The Dutch royal family has standards to maintain. She assured us that she had a long term relationship with a mob godfather and was personally involved in murdering and torturing rivals to her lover's drug empire as well as smuggling large quantities of crack in her pants which she handed out to young children outside schools, occasionally blasting away at passing cars with an Uzi that she concealed in her handbag. It has subsequently emerged that she may not have been personally involved in the drugs business and may have simply been shagging a gangster for the money to supplement her student income. The intelligence services have investigated her family for fascist relatives who may have been involved in crimes against humanity, but alas none have been found. We therefore find her quite unsuitable for a position in the monarchy."

More info:
BBC News - Dutch prince renounces throne

The Dutch royals don't half pick 'em:
Dutch prince takes junta link bride

03 October 2003

Oath to Queen is discriminatory

An Australian anti-discrimination tribunal has ruled that requiring an oath of allegiance to the Queen is effectively discrimination based on political beliefs. It ruled the decision by the RSL (Returned and Services League, Australian veterans organization) to reject an 81 year old applicant purely because of his refusal to swear the oath was illegal.

The ruling has huge implications for the official status of the monarchy in Australia and potentially in other countries too.

The Age (Australia) - Veteran wins RSL fight over swearing loyalty to Queen

20 August 2003

Another royal house in flames

It's a well known scientific fact that only the most volatile and combustable materials known to mankind are used to construct the Windsors' many houses.

Latest in this long line of Royal bonfires was the Queen's personal beach hut at Holkham, near to one of the Queen's other houses at Sandringham, Norfolk.

Unfortunately no pictures of the fire appear to exist, so you will have to make do with looking at the burned-out remains.

No doubt it can be rebuilt with some more tax payers money.

More information:
BBC News - Arson attack on Queen's beach hut

14 August 2003

Harry gets B and D in A-levels

Prince Harry has achieved mediocre grades in his A-Level exams - he got a B in Art and a D in geography.

He dropped a third subject - history of art after his AS exams last year.

Fees for Eton run to thousands of pounds.

St James's Palace said: "By achieving two A-Level passes, Prince Harry is able to continue pursuing his wish for a future career in the Army" (thereby proving that where you went to school IS more important than your grades when it comes to joining the army).

ThroneOut confidently predicts that Harry won't be seeing military action on the front line in Iraq, with its withering 50C temperatures and repeated attacks against coalition troops.

For more information see:
BBC News - Prince Harry's A-level results

14 July 2003

ThroneOut Mint presents first Diana collectable

The ThroneOut Mint is proud to present the first of our own line in high-quality royal collectables.

The Diana Inflatable Crash-Test Sex Doll

Manufactured in rip-proof nylon, the doll is a beautiful testament to the People’s Princess. From the surprised facial expression that says “watch out for the pillar!”, the tightly clenched buttocks that say “I've been around a bit” to the pert, bouncy tits that say “this is clearly just our normal sex doll with a Diana face added” – the Diana Inflatable Crash-Test Sex Doll is a collectable that will become a family heirloom and have your less-favoured children contesting your last will and testament after you die.

For further information see:
BBC - Diana fund faces financial crisis

03 May 2003

Windsors award themselves more titles

Despite already being Earls or Dukes, the Queen has seen fit to Knight her sons Edward and Andrew. Whilst some people have to give a lifetime of service for a mere BEM (at best), if your Mum's the Queen you can sit on your well-fed arse and just watch the honours accumulate.

Edward and Andrew can now use the letters KCVO after their names.

Andy is now:
HRH The Duke of York KCVO ADC. ADC indicates he is a personal aide-de-camp (assistant) to his mother. He is also Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.

Ed is now:
HRH The Earl of Wessex KCVO. He is also Viscount Severn.

Just to prove the Queen isn't out of touch she bestows more unearned honours on her useless family at our expense.

According to Harold Brooks-Baker, publisher of Burke's Peerage, and top royal toadie:

"These are simply family honours which have been handed out for several generations. There are always a few family honours - and these knighthoods are considered rather harmless. Nobody objects to them, because nobody really knows what they are."

"It shows that mother loves them, that's all."

Many British people do object to the honours system being turned into a farce both by the award of honours in return for party political favours, and being used as a self indulgent back-slapping exercise for members of the Royal Family.

Edward failed in the military. He failed at business. The public despise him. And nows he's been Knighted as a reward for his only achievement in life... continuing to breathe.

For more information see:
BBC News - Why did Prince Andrew and Prince Edward get knighthoods?

09 January 2003

Hewitt's plans to clear his debts

James Hewitt has announced that he plans to sell love letters between himself and Diana for £10 million. More information here.

However, ThroneOut can reveal exclusively Hewitt's new business venture that is set to earn him considerably more. He has partnered with a new age cult in order to product a 'Create your own Prince Harry Half-Brother' kit.

ThroneOut obtained a beta version of the pack, the back of which claims to offer 'an authentic Hewitt impregnation experience'. No instructions were included but the kit contains a small sachet of white liquid, a small bottle of gin, a hairnet, two cigarettes and a small plastic syringe-like object similar in size and shape to 2" chipolata sausage.

Hewitt was vague when questioned over how the product worked or how it was produced, leading some scientists to pour scorn on his claim to be able to produce Prince Harry half-brothers. Hewitt's integrity is bound to be criticized by many, with some considering the product very bad taste, although we found that mixing with blackcurrant did help somewhat.

When asked if he was directly involved with the manufacturing he replied "of course", but admitted that the rate of production was unacceptably low due to the limited range of 'specialist' cable TV stations he could currently receive.