More Scandal for Britain's Royals?

L O N D O N, Nov. 10, 2003 -- It's a potentially explosive royal scandal, but in a bizarre battle involving the courts, the media, the royal family as well as current and former royal staffers, the British public is not allowed to know what's it's all about — except that Prince Charles says it did not happen.

A long-brewing storm of an alleged incident between a "senior royal" and a royal servant turned into a tempest in recent days when the British press announced it would reveal the details of what it promised were particularly shocking allegations.

Their efforts, however, were obstructed last week when a former personal aide to Charles was granted a legal injunction preventing a British paper from revealing the details of a story he claimed to be libelous.

And in a bizarre twist, Charles made the unprecedented move of issuing a statement identifying himself as the royal in question, but denying the allegations.

With British papers obeying the court injunction, the public was then informed that their future king had dismissed as "totally untrue" an allegation they were not allowed to read about.

'Charles and His Valet'

Not that the British public remains wholly ignorant about the details of the latest royal scandal.

In a front page headline over the weekend, the Mail on Sunday promised the "World Exclusive — Charles and His Valet: The True Story." Inside the tabloid, however, the story remained shrouded in innuendo and rumor, whispering tales of an alleged incident between Charles and one of his servants.

The sequence of events leading up to the media frenzy that is now giving Buckingham Palace a royal headache are long-winded and confusing, but the basis of the story is this: before the Mail on Sunday published its story, a former senior aide to Charles was granted a court injunction preventing the article from being published.

The Guardian newspaper then decided to name Michael Fawcett as the former royal aide who took out the injunction. But lawyers for The Guardian stressed in court that the newspaper, "never intended to publish the Mail on Sunday's claims," and that it had "no reason to believe them to be true."

An 'Unspecified Incident'

While the injunction still stands against the Mail on Sunday, the paper made a strategic media move.

They went ahead and printed an interview with former royal aide Smith, who made claims involving Charles and another royal servant. Smith claimed that he witnessed an incident involving Charles after taking breakfast to the prince.

The paper also mentioned that Smith's claims are supported by a second former royal servant, who was not named. Smith has previously made claims that another royal servant raped him — claims that were discredited upon investigation.

Paradoxically, this decision to publish was made easier by Charles' denial of the "unspecified incident." The statement, issued by Charles' spokesman Sir Michael Peat said the allegation was "untrue — without a shred of substance" and that the alleged incident "which the former employee claims to have witnessed did not take place."

'Is Charles Bisexual?'

Not surprisingly, the scandal — the latest in a host of rumors and allegations surrounding Britain's future king — has been the topic of discussion in pubs across the country.

Fanning the flames of the scandal over the weekend, the British tabloid the News of the World published a banner headline, "Is Charles Bisexual?" — a question later answered in the story with an emphatic "no."

Adding fuel to the story, the Evening Standard published an interview with another former royal servant, Simon Solari, who said the claims by Smith could not be true because under the rules of the royal household, Smith would not have been the servant permitted to enter Charles' bedroom with breakfast.

Internet Tells All

The British royal family is no stranger to often salacious published allegations about their private lives.

Last month, the publication of a book by Princess Diana's former butler Paul Burrell led to a media frenzy, with allegations including a reference to a secret recording of the current allegations involving Prince Charles.

The current scandal, however, stands out both for the nature of its allegations as well as that of Britain's libel laws.

The fact that a newspaper was issued with an injunction preventing it from publishing a story about the royal family is intriguing.

But while the British papers have been reluctant to publish the nature of the alleged incident for fear of facing a libel case, the Internet has proved to have no such qualms. Full details of the allegations have already appeared on various Web sites and it seems only a matter of time that the full extent of the allegations will be available for public consumption.

"Within a day or so, perhaps tomorrow's papers, then pretty well the full allegations that have been denied by the palace will be published," the Daily Telegraph's legal affairs editor Joshua Rozenburg told the BBC.

Meanwhile, the man at the center of the storm today ruled out making a special television appearance to deny the latest allegations.

Back from a two-week overseas trip that took him from the slums of India to the forts of Oman, Charles has so far declined to make a TV appearance or take legal action.

According to his office, the crown prince will be spending the next few days at his country estate in the west of England, where he is expected to confer with his advisers about the latest allegations.

But by all accounts, the latest scandal to rock the House of Windsor shows little chance of fading into the quiet English countryside.