Turmoil. Scandal. Constitutional Issues.
By Fr. Wilson (articles ) | Nov 07, 2003
This could jeopardize his succeeding his Mum as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Of course, he could always get consecrated a Bishop, though. God provides. Fr Wilson
NYT NEWSROOM TURMOIL OVER PRINCE CHARLES GAY RUMOR Fri Nov 07 2003 16:45:11 ET
Top editors at the NEW YORK TIMES panicked and ordered a story killed after London-based reporter Sarah Lyall filed a dispatch alleging rumors of Prince Charles and a sexual affair with one of his closest advisers!
The story appeared on the TIMES's internet website for 20 minutes -- before top editors ordered it immediately removed, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
"This should never have been published!" a top newsroom source explained Friday evening.
Lyall reported: "No one would say what the rumor was. Not the British newspapers, which were writing long, innuendo-laced articles about it. Not the television commentators, who were discussing it with acrobatic opacity. Especially not Prince Charles, who seemed to be hoping it would just go away...
"The allegation (although no one has said so publicly) has to do with purported sexual contact between Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, and Michael Fawcett, one of his closest advisers."
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Nov. 08, 2003 8:32 PM ET USA
Hard to know what to make of this. No smoke without fire...? Of course there would be precedent for it. After all, homosexuality used to be called the 'English disease' in certain quarters...
Posted by: Gil125 -
Nov. 08, 2003 3:16 PM ET USA
John Plick: The Times' substitute story, printed Saturday, makes it clear. Great Britain has very strict libel laws that could get its London correspondent and her publishers into major trouble for publishing the libel---which is also defined differently there than here. They have no First Amendment (having no written constitution). So don't pack your bags: the world is not about to come to an end---a fair inference if it were true that the Times had developed a conscience.
Posted by: John J Plick -
Nov. 07, 2003 10:56 PM ET USA
And since when has the New York Times displayed scruples??? They seem to smear everything else. The mystery to me is; Why does the British Royal rate???