A former Buckingham Palace valet claims his brother saw Prince Charles and his
aide Michael Fawcett in bed together. (File photo by AP)
Activists find inspiration, new enemies from the West
Homophobia a major obstacle to prevention efforts
|
BRYAN ANDERTON
Friday, November 14, 2003
LONDON — In what is arguably the oddest scandal to hit the British royal
family in recent years, Prince Charles has denied allegations that he and a male
aide were discovered in bed together by a former butler.
That such salacious rumors would be the subject of tabloid fodder is not unusual,
considering the British media’s appetite for royal gossip. What makes
the case especially strange is that nearly all major news outlets in Britain
and elsewhere have refused to print the allegations for fear of being punished
under Britain’s strict libel laws.
That extends to many notable American news outlets, including USA Today, the
Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. In fact, the New York Times posted
a dispatch from one of its London-based reporters on its Web site last Friday,
stating the details of the rumor. Within 20 minutes, the story had been taken
off the site.
The concern about repeating the rumors stems from Britain’s libel laws,
which are much tougher than those in America and extend to foreign-based newspapers
that publish in England as well.
“It’s quite different [than in America] because in England, libel
can be a strict liability, which means even if it’s an honest mistake
or an understandable error, the publisher can still be held liable for that,” said
Dave Heller, a staff attorney at the Media Law Research Center in New York. “Also
what is quite significant is that in English libel law, the plaintiff’s
good reputation is always assumed, so the burden is on the defendant to prove
that what they said was true. It’s completely the reverse in the United
States.”
The scandal broke nearly two weeks ago when the brother of former Buckingham
Palace valet George Smith publicly claimed in an interview with the Daily Mirror
that his brother had witnessed a member of the royal family “tucked up” in
bed with a servant one morning as he was delivering breakfast. Neither the
royal family member nor the servant — Charles’ longtime personal
aide Michael Fawcett — were named.
“When George knocked and opened the door of one member of the royal
family, he said he almost froze in shock at the sight before him,” Bryan
Smith, George Smith’s brother, told the Mirror in an article published
Nov. 2. “He said it was completely surreal. The royal and the servant
were tucked up under the sheets, lying next to each other.”
The Mail on Sunday, a British newspaper, was ready to publish a story chronicling
the allegations in full detail, naming the royal and the servant involved,
until Fawcett obtained a legal injunction against the paper to prevent it from
running the story. The injunction effectively banned all media outlets that
broadcast or publish in Britain from publicizing details of the story.
The legal maneuver was highly unusual, Heller said.
“It’s quite rare to get a pre-publication injunction in a libel
claim in English law. … Normally the English law frowns on prior restraint,” Heller
said. “So out of fear of being held liable for repeating the same statements,
media companies would not publish the exact allegation that was at issue, but
instead would hint at it in indirect ways.”
Making matters more bizarre, both Prince Charles and his staff last week denied
that the rumors were true, without giving any hints as to what rumors they
were denying.
“I agree it is rather unusual to make a statement about an unspecified
allegation,” Sir Michael Peat, the prince’s secretary, said in
a television interview last week. “However, this allegation is becoming
common currency, it is the subject of much speculation and innuendo, and I
just want to make it entirely clear, even though I can’t refer to the
specifics of the allegation, that it is totally untrue and without a shred
of substance.”
Some have said that the intense attention the story has received and the prince’s
unusual public denial are due to the fact that it was a man that Charles was
supposedly found in bed with.
But Michael Young, northeastern regional media manager for the Gay & Lesbian
Alliance Against Defamation, said the speculation behind the rumors probably
had little to do with the gay aspects of the allegations.
“At this point, there aren’t any confirmed details,” Young
said. “We would hope that when there is something concrete that the media
would cover it responsibly and not sensationalize it.”
By Sunday, a few brazen foreign newspapers — including some Irish and
Scottish papers that are not published in England — had put the full
picture together for their readers. In England, meanwhile, the gossip surrounding
Prince Charles’ supposed bisexuality became more and more salacious.
Despite rumors to the contrary, Bryan Smith said his brother did not see Prince
Charles and Fawcett engaged in any explicit sexual behavior.
“
George has told me there was no physical activity, but you didn’t have
to be a brain surgeon to work out what had been going on,” Bryan Smith
told the Daily Mirror.
Also, there is some skepticism surrounding George Smith’s claims. Last
year, Smith claimed he had been raped by royal servants years earlier. Those
allegations were eventually discredited after being investigated, and sources
within the royal family claimed that Smith was suffering from alcoholism and
post-traumatic stress disorder after fighting in the Falklands War.
In an unrelated interview with London’s Telegraph newspaper, Prince
Charles said that he did not “relish” the harsh debate following
the consecration of a gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, which is affiliated
with the Church of England through the worldwide Anglican Communion. Once Charles
assumes the throne, he will be the titular head of the denomination.
Charles said nonetheless that the church must relax its views on morality
or face “odd” situations such as the row that erupted over the
gay bishop or Charles’ controversial relationship with companion Camilla
Parker Bowles. Prince Charles said the two were living together rather than
marrying because church rules stopped divorcees remarrying in church.
|
