Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sex, Drugs and the Royal Family


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Rachel Williams

Monday October 29, 2007

The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,2201079,00.html

The member of the royal family targeted in an alleged blackmail plot centring on sex and drug claims is not a senior royal, the Guardian understands.

Scotland Yard yesterday confirmed that two men are in custody, having been charged with blackmail last month. Buckingham Palace has refused to discuss the case, saying it is a police matter.

Although a name was being circulated yesterday, a court order prevents the identification of the royal or any witnesses.

But royal sources indicated that the individual concerned does not have a high public profile.

The two alleged blackmailers wanted £50,000 not to publicise a video they suggested showed the royal in sexual activities with an aide, the Sunday Times reported. They were also alleged to have claimed that they had footage of the aide snorting cocaine and evidence suggesting the royal had supplied the aide with an envelope containing the drug.

The case is the first alleged extortion attempt against a royal for more than a century.

The men in custody, aged 30 and 40, were reported to have been arrested last month in what was reported to have been an undercover sting after the royal contacted police.

They arranged to meet someone they believed was a member of the royal's staff in a suite at the Hilton Hotel, in Park Lane, Mayfair, the Sunday Times reported, and showed him parts of what they claimed was the sex video.

But the man was an undercover detective from the Metropolitan police's kidnap and blackmail unit, the report said, and as the meeting was secretly videoed by detectives in an adjacent room, the men were seized.

In a statement, Scotland Yard said: "A 30-year-old man and 40-year-old man appeared at City of Westminster magistrates' court on September 13, each charged with one count of blackmail. Both have been remanded in custody to reappear at the Old Bailey on December 20."

The court hearing was held behind closed doors.

The Sunday Times said the alleged blackmailers first contacted the royal household on August 2. A man telephoned the royal's office, identifying himself only by his first name and saying that another man, who worked on the royal's staff, had an envelope containing cocaine, and suggesting it was embossed with the royal's personal insignia.

He then reportedly claimed that he had a videotape which showed the aide performing oral sex on someone the caller indicated as the royal. The man then left a mobile phone number, asking for the royal to ring him.

In further calls, one man was said to have claimed that the tapes showed an aide snorting cocaine, and guaranteed nobody would ever see the tapes because they were safe in his flat.

A Whitehall security official told the newspaper the caller then said he wanted £50,000 for the tape. The source said that a senior legal adviser to the royal agreed with one of the men that he would see the tape before handing over the cash.

By then a detective had been attached to the royal's staff and contacted the gang to arrange the Hilton meeting. The two men were arrested on September 11.

The royal cannot be identified because of reporting restrictions imposed under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act. This is common practice in allegations of blackmail to ensure that the claims a defendant is accused of threatening to make do not become public through court proceedings.

The restrictions prohibit identification of the alleged victim and alleged witnesses until any further order by a judge.

The Crown Prosecution Service also successfully applied for the September hearing to be held in camera, but it is not yet known whether lawyers will seek similar treatment when the defendants appear at the Old Bailey in December, a CPS spokeswoman said.

"We made two applications, for the section 11 restrictions and for the court to be heard in camera," she said. "We make such applications to protect the interests of alleged victims and alleged witnesses." Members of the press were present when the applications were made and did not make any applications objecting to them, she added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love sex scandals, except when they're used to cover up far worse things (e.g. the whole Monica business).

Not being familiar with British law, I get the impression from the article that these guys can be tried for blackmail without the target "royal" ever being identified in court. Is this true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rachel Williams

Monday October 29, 2007

The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,2201079,00.html

The member of the royal family targeted in an alleged blackmail plot centring on sex and drug claims is not a senior royal, the Guardian understands.

When Princess Diana was done-in [as I so suspect!] they really should have perhaps rolled-up the institution in a long red carpet, and just stayed in their lovely hard-earned [sic] castles having tea and scones IMO. Strangely, in the USA we are turning our Presidency and Oligarchy into something more akin to your Royalty. [and we can 'see and raise' you, poker-style, with Mr. William Clinton anytime.]

Princess Diana had more class then those fake royals anyday. They're really Germans, but took the name Windsor and became Britain's Royalty. The only ones with British blood flowing in their veins are Diana's kids. I understand Diana descended from the Stuarts and I read on an Internet site devoted to her that she was a direct descendant of the Merovingian Kings -- the ones with the blood of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdeline flowing in their veins.

I believe she was murdered too. The British pay high taxes to keep this family going. Except for Wills, I think England should do away with their musty Royal family. What good are they?

Also, America from the beginning of the 20th Century has always had royals -- Movie Stars.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Guardian also published an article yesterday about previous blackmail attempts against the royal family:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2201207,00.html

Attempts to link the Duke of Clarence, son of King Edward VII, with the Jack the Ripper murders stem in part from his dealings with blackmailing prostitutes. Letters auctioned in London five years ago showed that a Mrs Richardson was paid £200 to keep quiet. The duke sent the money (£12,000 at today's values) via an aide in return for letters he had written. He noted it was "rather expensive but I presume there is no other way of getting them. I will also do all I can to get back the one or two letters written to the other lady."

A mother and her daughter in Munich blackmailed Prince Ludwig of Bavaria by "threatening to make public certain events in his life in which the younger woman had been concerned". He paid until, in 1913, they demanded the equivalent of £1m at today's values to stop them writing a book. They and a publisher were jailed.

Kaiser Wilhelm II was involved in a swirl of gay scandals from 1907 to 1909 - his army secretariat chief dropped dead of a heart attack while dancing in a tutu, and the venerable chancellor, Prince von Bülow, was said to have kissed a man at a private function. Army commander von Moltke's nickname was given in court as Sweetie, and six officers committed suicide in blackmail plots. Bülow and Moltke won libel actions.

In 1907 Victor Emmanuel III of Italy defied an apparent blackmailer who demanded an annuity to support her son whom she claimed was the result of her seduction by Victor Emmanuel's father, King Umberto. Victor Emmanuel stood Firm, despite carping that it was his meanness which lay behind his willingness to have his father's name dragged through the courts. He was vindicated, as the woman had no birth documents and an alleged wet-nurse for the child who was called to court proved to have been only 13.

Louis XVI of France paid off London criminals who published sexual libels about his queen, Marie Antoinette. The gangs took advantage of British law which protected only British citizens. The king's deep purse worked but his over-efficient bureaucrats filed copies of the blackmail pamphlets in the Bastille. On its fall in 1789, these were reprinted by the thousand, blackening the queen's reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
I love sex scandals, except when they're used to cover up far worse things (e.g. the whole Monica business).

Not being familiar with British law, I get the impression from the article that these guys can be tried for blackmail without the target "royal" ever being identified in court. Is this true?

I understand from the TV report of this yesterday, that the court proceedings were held "In Camera" - which might answer your question, Ron.

On royal's snorting cocaine, readers might want to refer to the website of former British spook, Martin Frost, who (quite awhile back) makes interesting reading about Princess Di's eldest son:

http://www.martinfrost.ws/

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
There has been much speculation that the royal is Prince Edward. The royal family has attempted to end this speculation by claiming it was a "minor" royal. The point is, how minor is Edward?

Being famous for a royal version of Jeux Sans Frontieres is about as minor as it gets...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rachel Williams

Monday October 29, 2007

The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,2201079,00.html

The member of the royal family targeted in an alleged blackmail plot centring on sex and drug claims is not a senior royal, the Guardian understands.

Scotland Yard yesterday confirmed that two men are in custody, having been charged with blackmail last month. Buckingham Palace has refused to discuss the case, saying it is a police matter.

Although a name was being circulated yesterday, a court order prevents the identification of the royal or any witnesses.

But royal sources indicated that the individual concerned does not have a high public profile.

The two alleged blackmailers wanted £50,000 not to publicise a video they suggested showed the royal in sexual activities with an aide, the Sunday Times reported. They were also alleged to have claimed that they had footage of the aide snorting cocaine and evidence suggesting the royal had supplied the aide with an envelope containing the drug.

The case is the first alleged extortion attempt against a royal for more than a century.

The men in custody, aged 30 and 40, were reported to have been arrested last month in what was reported to have been an undercover sting after the royal contacted police.

They arranged to meet someone they believed was a member of the royal's staff in a suite at the Hilton Hotel, in Park Lane, Mayfair, the Sunday Times reported, and showed him parts of what they claimed was the sex video.

But the man was an undercover detective from the Metropolitan police's kidnap and blackmail unit, the report said, and as the meeting was secretly videoed by detectives in an adjacent room, the men were seized.

In a statement, Scotland Yard said: "A 30-year-old man and 40-year-old man appeared at City of Westminster magistrates' court on September 13, each charged with one count of blackmail. Both have been remanded in custody to reappear at the Old Bailey on December 20."

The court hearing was held behind closed doors.

The Sunday Times said the alleged blackmailers first contacted the royal household on August 2. A man telephoned the royal's office, identifying himself only by his first name and saying that another man, who worked on the royal's staff, had an envelope containing cocaine, and suggesting it was embossed with the royal's personal insignia.

He then reportedly claimed that he had a videotape which showed the aide performing oral sex on someone the caller indicated as the royal. The man then left a mobile phone number, asking for the royal to ring him.

In further calls, one man was said to have claimed that the tapes showed an aide snorting cocaine, and guaranteed nobody would ever see the tapes because they were safe in his flat.

A Whitehall security official told the newspaper the caller then said he wanted £50,000 for the tape. The source said that a senior legal adviser to the royal agreed with one of the men that he would see the tape before handing over the cash.

By then a detective had been attached to the royal's staff and contacted the gang to arrange the Hilton meeting. The two men were arrested on September 11.

The royal cannot be identified because of reporting restrictions imposed under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act. This is common practice in allegations of blackmail to ensure that the claims a defendant is accused of threatening to make do not become public through court proceedings.

The restrictions prohibit identification of the alleged victim and alleged witnesses until any further order by a judge.

The Crown Prosecution Service also successfully applied for the September hearing to be held in camera, but it is not yet known whether lawyers will seek similar treatment when the defendants appear at the Old Bailey in December, a CPS spokeswoman said.

"We made two applications, for the section 11 restrictions and for the court to be heard in camera," she said. "We make such applications to protect the interests of alleged victims and alleged witnesses." Members of the press were present when the applications were made and did not make any applications objecting to them, she added.

Glad to hear it is not likely the Queen. When I was in University there was a group who met and called themselves the Society for Creative Anachronism. The 'Royals' seem like a society for not-very creative anachronism. I realize their role in your history, and don't mean to offend anyone who holds them in full esteem, but maybe they should be put in a museum [retired from active service], rather than the gold-rimmed fishbowl....but then what would the tabloids do?! Well, nice to know they are human....and have human foibles [if the blackmail allegtions are true]. When Princess Diana was done-in [as I so suspect!] they really should have perhaps rolled-up the institution in a long red carpet, and just stayed in their lovely hard-earned [sic] castles having tea and scones IMO. Strangely, in the USA we are turning our Presidency and Oligarchy into something more akin to your Royalty. [and we can 'see and raise' you, poker-style, with Mr. William Clinton anytime.]

I agree.

They are a boring lot, and the Brits, media, papparizi, etc. who fawn all over them similarly bore me.

They should be treated as the relic that they are.

And Diana certainly had more integrity than her in-laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should be treated as the relic that they are.

And Diana certainly had more integrity than her in-laws.

The VERY reasons she had to die...she made them look bad [as they mostly are...in their do-nothing-good-ness...and her actually doing somethings toward creating a better world......]. She talked of AIDS, poverty, inequality, landmines...and more.

Their world is one of hand-made saddles, billion-pound estates, tea at the proper time,  peerage-up-the-yazoo and other nonsense from centuries and societies past. Diana was a modern. 

She had to die, and die they made sure she did. 

Anyone heard about her death inquiry?

Peter, I believe as you and Christopher Hall do. She was murdered and the first responders had to help it along, as she wasn't dead yet. I just want to answer a rumor. It's been claimed that in the back seat, after they got the 4 passengers out, the authorities found cocaine. I don't believe it. I don't believe Princess Diana would resort to illegal drugs. She had 2 children to whom she had to be a role model, as a Royal. I believe this drug was planted by someone who responded right away. I also can't see Diana being interested in a man who did illegal drugs. This "evidence," more than anything -- with exception to the slow ambulance ride -- convinces me she was set up. And they had to make her look bad even in death, so people wouldn't feel sorry for her and despise the Royals.

I think if Diana had lived and there was this issue about cocaine in the back seat, all she would have to say is it was planted and I think everyone would believe her. What a bunch of creeps: MI5 or MI6 or Prince Philip.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should be treated as the relic that they are.

And Diana certainly had more integrity than her in-laws.

The VERY reasons she had to die...she made them look bad [as they mostly are...in their do-nothing-good-ness...and her actually doing somethings toward creating a better world......]. She talked of AIDS, poverty, inequality, landmines...and more.

Their world is one of hand-made saddles, billion-pound estates, tea at the proper time, peerage-up-the-yazoo and other nonsense from centuries and societies past. Diana was a modern. She had to die, and die they made sure she did. 

Anyone heard about her death inquiry?

Well put description of Di.

"I think if Diana had lived and there was this issue about cocaine in the back seat, all she would have to say is it was planted and I think everyone would believe her. What a bunch of creeps: MI5 or MI6 or Prince Philip. "

Kathy

Nice understated description of Di's in-laws, Kathy.

I think that the investigation is actively ongoing in London as we speak, but I am expecting (more) whitewash.

It's rather surprising that Camilla's ex (you know, the one who was good friends with Charles) hasn't met a similar fate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
Their world is one of hand-made saddles, billion-pound estates, tea at the proper time, peerage-up-the-yazoo

and other nonsense from centuries and societies past. Diana was a modern.

She had to die, and die they made sure she did.

Anyone heard about her death inquiry?

Peter, I agree with most everything you say. But not "tea at the proper time." Not that. Please (England without four O'clock cumcumber sandwishes, Earl Grey tea and finger cakes would not be England). B)

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
I actually love Earl Gray Tea!.....but a cucumber sandwich doens't make my day....bland. My memories of Breakfast in Britain was toast made a bit too dark and then everyone scrapping it a little to make it less dark..and a special sound of that...plus the taste with Dundee marmalade and butter - ah, tradition! That is what the Royals are....the dust of the ages. The young princes are obviously, like Diana, moderns and their longevity could be in jeapardy (like JFK Jr.'s).....if they ever try to trace the path of what happened to Diana, or follow in her footsteps.

Ah, the sound of burned toast being made fit for a king. You're right, Peter. The sound of it (or even the thought of the sound of it) immediately brings back memories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...