'Paki' and 'Raghead' officially no longer racist terms

After video of Prince Harry using both words emerged, royal brown-nosers have rallied round to clear the prince of any wrongdoing. It has been decided by senior government and military chiefs that both terms will retrospectively removed from the lexicon of offensive racist slurs and recategorized as harmless friendly banter. Consequently Harry will not be censured for use of the terms, and in fact has been praised by those hoping for knighthoods as a poster child for race relations.

Furthermore, some other terms popularly used by the prince have similarly had their meanings reclassified to head-off any future controversy.

1. N*gger - A gentleman who you are very friendly with and have a close working relationship with, and for whom you have the utmost respect and who might coincidentally have a darker than average skin tone
2. F*cking c*nt - A bit of a wag who is nevertheless quite lovable and well meaning
3. M*therf*cker - Any man known to have met Prince Diana on more than one occasion, or for more than 10 minutes on a single occasion

More info:
News of the World - Prince Harry's racist outbursts on video

Charles' tax avoidance questioned

Unlike us poor saps, the Windsors get to decide how much tax they pay, and whether they actually want to pay any tax at all.

For example the Queen wasn't required to pay inheritance tax on the Queen Mother's estate, and the will was made private (wills are normally public documents) so no one outside the Royal family knows how much tax was avoided.

The Queen volunteers to pay some income tax (after a generous deduction of expenses naturally - roast swan isn't cheap).

Charles' income derives from the Duchy of Cornwall. It (like the Duchy of Lancaster that creates income for the Queen) is exempt from both corporate and capital gains tax. No one is quite sure why.

Charles voluntarily agrees to pay some tax on this income (to stop the peasants revolting one assumes). However, since the accounts are closed (unlike every normal business in the UK that has to submit accounts to the taxman) its not clear exactly how much tax is being avoided by these exemptions.

Next time you get your payslip and see the large chunk the government has taken out of it, or have to pay a large inheritance tax bill on a deceased relative's estate, at least you can console yourself with the thought that part of these taxes are being used to support the Windsors living in their numerous homes. And that the Windsors are exempt from the taxes you have to pay.

More info:
The Telegraph - Watchdog investigates Charles' tax record
The Guardian - MPs angry at confidential royal will and tax deal

Charles's great uncle in military coup plots

A BBC documentary reveals that Harold Wilson not only believed that the secret services were plotting to discredit him, but that they intended to stage a military coup backed by the Royal Family.

Prince Charles's great uncle Lord Louis Mountbatten, who he was very close to, was to be installed as interim Prime Minister following the coup.

While some may dismiss this as paranoia on behalf of Wilson, various other information seems to corroborate his beliefs. New witnesses interviewed for the programme talk about these military coups and Mountbatten's role in them. Journalist Barrie Penrose, who secretly recorded meetings with Wilson, says they confirm such plotting "wasn't in the fevered imagination of an embittered ex-PM".

Penrose concludes his Radio Times article: "You may ask, at the end of the programme, how much of it can be believed. My view now, as it was then, is that Wilson was right in his fears.... in answer to the question 'how close did we come to a military government' I can only say - closer than we'd ever be content to think."

So much for the Royal Family and the monarchy as guarantors of freedom and democracy.

More information
BBC News - Wilson 'plot': The secret tapes

Charles lectures on global warming

When it comes to hypocrisy, they don't come much worse than the Windsors. The Queen (who is patron of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) was famously pictured "despatching" a bird that had been injured by her shooting party - by beating it to death with a stick.

Not to be outdone by his mother, Prince Charles has been lecturing the "proles" about global warming. Apparently its a problem and its something we should be doing something about (in case you hadn't heard).

Charles told the BBC:

"We should be treating, I think, the whole issue of climate change and global warming with a far greater degree of priority than I think is happening now"

Most would agree with this sentiment - the impact as well of the causes of global warming are widely known. But whilst many of us choose lower emission cars, public transport and cycling/walking as means of transport, the Windsors have shown a preference for helicopters - which use many times more fuel than a car for the same trip.

In the Times it was recently reported (in coverage of the Royal Budget):

On one occasion, Prince Charles took a chartered helicopter from his home Highgrove in Tetbury to nearby Gloucester and then on to Buckingham Palace for £4,031. His engagements included a Prince’s Trust event and a visit to Smithfield Market. In April last year, the Princess Royal took a chartered helicopter ride from her home Gatcombe Park to Thorncote Green for £4,710 to present rosettes at a pony club.

Once again the Windsor rule is "do as we say, not as we do".

More information:
BBC News - Prince's plea over climate change
The Times - Queen wins rebate as price of party cakes soars

ThroneOut Mint presents the Charles & Di mug conversion kit

The recent announcement of the forthcoming wedding of serial adulterer Prince Charles to serial adulteress Camilla Parker Bowles has had the owners of high-quality historical collectables in a panic. What to do with those embarrassing old Charles & Di cups from the early 80s?

You remember the day you heard our future king was going to marry. You were delighted. And when the wedding arrived in 1981, you just couldn't help but stack up your shelves with cheaply manufactured tat celebrating the event and pledging your undying loyalty. Even Spurs winning the FA Cup couldn't top your delight.

But sadly things went down hill. Your Diana collectables remained in your display cabinet only by virtue of her untimely demise in a mysterious car accident. The signed photo of Sol Campbell from the early 90s was not so lucky.

But with Charles set to move on, those Charles and Di mugs are an unpleasant reminder of better times. You'll look like an ageing, out-of-touch square, rather than a modern standard-bearer for constitutional monarchy.

Fortunately ThroneOut Mint has the answer. The ThroneOut Mint Charles & Diana Mug Conversion Kit. Featuring a sticker specially designed to fit over the face of the mad, deceased ex-wife, you can turn those embarrassing old collectables into something to be proud of again. Do your bit to airbrush over recent royal history - buy the ThroneOut Mint Charles & Diana Mug Conversion Kit now.

Prince Charles: "Don't get ideas above your station"

A sex-discrimination case involving a former member of Prince Charles's household has revealed the astonishing arrogance of Prince Charles.

A memo was presented in which the Prince writes:

"What is wrong with everyone nowadays?"

"Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities?"

"People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability."

Of course, he has never put in the necessary work to be head of state, since there is none necessary for him.

The Prince's mother is the head of state of the UK. The position is inherited regardless of talent, ability, qualifications or electoral mandate. Prince Charles will inherit the position without any assessment of whether he meets any of these 'qualifications' to be head of state.

So while the Great British public have to work hard to achieve any status or wealth, the Windsors will continue to be given it unconditionally. And they will continue to arrogantly believe in their own 'natural ability' while criticizing the public who have to work for a living.

One can only speculate how far Jug Ears would go as a member of the public in a society based on merit. Jobs for human tampons and translators fluent in silver-birch are rather thin on the ground.


More information:
BBC News - Former secretary accuses Prince

Mad Prince Charles says Mad King George wasn't mad

When George Smith (a Falklands War Veteran who risked his life for Queen and Country) claimed that he had been gay-raped by Prince Charles's boyfriend Michael Fawcett there was only one explanation the Prince Charles could use. Clearly Mr Smith was mad, quite insane in fact.

And when Princess Diana made the spookily prophetic claim that Charles was trying to murder her in a car crash, Prince Charles once again used his favourite explanation to explain Diana's letter. She was mad, paranoid.

These "expert" opinions on mental health came from a man who:

• enjoys killing or torturing animals (often seen as a sign of trouble by real mental health professionals)
  
• dumped Diana so he could shag Camilla Parker Bowles
  
• wanted to be Camilla's tampon
  
• talks to plants

However, when it comes to documented cases of loonies in the Windsor family, Charles has rather different opinions. He believes that his ancestor Mad King George III wasn't actually mad at all.

According to the Scotsman Newspaper Charles told the Timewatch TV programme that:

his studies of doctors’ reports and correspondence in the Royal archives had led him to the conclusion that his ancestor was ill, but was not insane.

The Scotsman adds

George III had a passion for the countryside and a strong interest in architecture, in common with Charles.

So we have a nutter who is interested in architecture and the countryside, defending a nutter who is interested in architecture and the countryside.

Charles intends to become King George VII upon succession. Perhaps he is modelling himself on King George III? Further investigation suggests not, the BBC History site states of George III:

Unlike his predecessor and successor, he had no mistresses to support - consequently his court was declared to be dull. His personal tastes were frugal - which allowed Gillray, the cartoonist, to ridicule the king breakfasting with relish on a boiled egg, or advising his daughters to drink tea without sugar.

There's not much chance of Charles giving up his extravagant lifestyle or his mistress (and gay lover).

But CBS clearly sees links between Mad King George and Prince Charles - their article about Charles views on his ancestor is cheekily entitled Did 'Mad' King George Get Bum Rap

More information:
The Scotsman - George III was ill, not insane, argues Charles
CBS News -Did 'Mad' King George Get Bum Rap?
The BBC - George III and History's Poisoned Well
BBC News - Clarence House statement in full

Diana claimed charles would kill her in car accident

ThroneOut has previously reported how Diana had claimed that a "senior royal" was planning to kill her in a car accident. The Mirror Newspaper has now confirmed that the letter she wrote accuses Prince Charles of planning her death. Diana was killed in a car accident later that year.

Diana was apparently convinced that she would be killed and had famously collated evidence of wrongdoing by Prince Charles which she apparently intended to use in any battle with him over the custody of her sons. There was also claimed to be unease in high places about the extent of her relationship with Dodi Fayed who would have been step father to the future King had Diana and Dodi married.

In related developments, the coroner appointed to oversee the inquest into Diana's death has adjourned the inquest until 2005 after appointing a senior policeman to investigate whether Diana's death was suspicious. So we have:
1) Diana rumoured to be about to marry Dodi Fayed, and possibly pregnant with his child
2) Diana collating evidence about male rape and other wrongdoing within Prince Charles' home, for use in a custody battle over William and Harry
3) Diana alleging that Prince Charles would arrange a car accident to kill her
4) Diana dying shortly afterwards in a car accident
5) Numerous documented inconsistencies with the official version of events both before and after the accident.

No doubt Mr Plod will conclude that there is nothing suspicious at all. Afterall, why let a jury see the evidence, when you can let one copper who has pledged allegiance to the Queen decide that for you?

"Nothing for you to see here folks, move along."

Coverage of this current story:
The Guardian - Burrell: I didn't want Charles named
BBC News - Diana crash investigation ordered

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 Sunday Mirror - REVEALED: SECRETS OF THE 'RAPE TAPE'
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.

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

'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.

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