Royal Affairs
(credit to Tom Jones for this excellent analysis)
In the last few months two separate British republican movements REPUBLIC (www.republic.org.uk) and Throne Out (www.throneout.freeserve.co.uk) have called for the DNA testing of all members of the royal family who receive money from the British taxpayer. Here is the background to that call for DNA testing.
Times have changed. There was a time when the royal family was looked upon with respect. They are now figures of ridicule. Today, everything is much more open and in recent years the late Princess Diana and Prince Charles have admitted their adultery. The royal family has fallen from its pedestal.
Not only has the family fallen in public esteem but the dark secrets which only a few have known about and which have been talked about behind closed doors for many years are now surfacing. The revelation of these secrets could have historic repercussions.
The monarchy is sitting on a time bomb which could explode at any time with devastating consequences for Britain and those Commonwealth countries,such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand etc. which still have constitutional ties to the institution of monarchy.
It is a saga which involves several sex scandals and,like Monica Lewinsky’s infamous blue dress, will probably involve DNA testing.
The kernel of the story is the huge strides which have been made in recent years in DNA testing in order to prove paternity.
In the pages which follow you will read extracts from five books. In these books there is strong prima facie evidence that the Queen, Princess Anne and the late Princess of Wales have given birth to children conceived out of wedlock.
The books are:
(i) ‘The Royal Marriages’ by Lady Colin Campbell published by Smyth Gryphon ISBN 1 85685 039 0; (ii) ‘Queen Elizabeth II, a woman who is not amused’ by Nicholas Davies published by Carol Publishing Group ISBN 1 55972 217 7; (iii) ‘Prince Philip- a critical biography’ by John Parker published by Sidgwick & Jackson ISBN 0 283 99929 2; (iv) ‘The Royals’ by Kitty Kelley published by Bantam Books ISBN 07338 0162 5; (v) ‘Elizabeth’ by Sarah Bradford published by Mandarin Books. The Queen
In 1956 the Queen discovered that Prince Philip was having an affair with Princess Alexandra. She banned him from her bed and the marriage ended in the conventional sense.
In his book ‘Queen Elizabeth II, a woman who is not amused’ Nicholas Davies writes at page 169: It is extraordinary that an affair involving two members of the royal family, one of them married to the Queen, has remained a secret for so many years. To the nation and their beloved Commonwealth, the royals have purported to set an example for all their subjects. Yet, the Queen’s consort, the man married to the Head of the Church of England whose views on adultery were unwaveringly strict, has been living an adulterous life for most of the 45 years he has been married to the Queen. Alexandra’s daughter, Marina, almost revealed the secret in 1989 when she became pregnant. Her parents urged her to have an abortion and Marina was so angry that she decided to tell all to a newspaper. Fortunately for her parents and Elizabeth and Philip caution prevailed and the affair remained a closely guarded royal confidence known only to a very few.
When it became finally known that Alex and Philip were lovers the revelation caused a major crisis in the family. Absolutely furious when he heard about the affair Lord Mountbatten confronted his nephew and ordered Philip to end the affair. Philip refused and told Mountbatten to “mind his own bloody business.”
At page 203 Davies writes: Philip’s affair with Alexandra, however, caused their marriage to reach a breaking point. John Barratt (Lord Mountbatten’s private secretary for 20 years) recalled ‘According to what Mountbatten told me that was very nearly the last straw. Elizabeth was beside herself with rage and anguish. She was deeply hurt and upset. She felt humiliated and scorned, yet there was nothing she could do.’
As Head of the Church of England she could not divorce her husband. Her only recourse was to ignore him for days and weeks and months. ‘She gave Philip the cold shoulder treatment’ commented a senior courtier in Prince Charles’s office. ‘Elizabeth made him squirm but it didn’t stop the affair which went on for many, many years.’
The affair became known throughout the royal family including the household of the Queen Mother and eventually of Prince Charles. Elizabeth had known that Philip chased other women. Dickie Mountbatten explained to Elizabeth ‘Philip knows what side his bread is buttered. Don’t worry. He’ll be back.’ Mountbatten knew how Philip thought because they had had many talks together in the days when Mountbatten planned his nephew’s marriage to the future Queen. Philip’s affairs took a considerable toll on their marriage and inevitably on Elizabeth’s love for him. He did not appear to care what effect his affairs had for he didn’t stop for nearly all his married life. The affair with Alexandra started in the mid-1950s. When the Queen found out about it she was devastated and required psychiatric treatment. Alexandra was her cousin, a close friend and ten years younger than her.
In ‘The Royal Marriages’ Campbell writes (page 97): For Lillibet the pain of discovering that her marriage possessed dimensions of which she had known nothing was only part of the picture.
Another significant part was the knowledge that she had been humiliated in front of everyone who mattered to her. Like many wives, she had been the last to hear the talk, and the mere thought that her personal life had been the stuff of gossip was enough to drive her into a frenzy of anguished indignation.
While she might have been able to salve her wounds had she been an ordinary person, because she was not one, and because she took the role of queen so seriously, the indignity done not only to her but also to Her Majesty the Queen was so loathsome as to bring her to the point of no return.
When most couples reach a point of no return they part. This, however, was never an option for Lillibet. No matter what happened between Philip and her, they could never take the paths of either separation or divorce. They were tied together for the remainder of their natural lives and irrespective of how they might feel about one another or what form their lives might take in the future they could never present anything but a united front to the world at large.
By 1956 Philip and Lillibet were leading separate lives.
Philip went on to have many affairs.
In the five books the names mentioned are: the late Helene Cordet, TV star Katie Boyle, actresses Anna Massey, Jane Russell, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Shirely Maclaine, Merle Oberon; the Duchess of Abercorn, the Countess of Westmoreland, the late Susie Barrantes (Fergie’s mother), Patti Kluge, Christina Ford and many polo wives.
THE PORCHESTER AFFAIR
In ‘Queen Elizabeth II, a woman who is not amused’ Nicholas Davies writes (p.186): Elizabeth became romantically involved with another man, Henry George Reginald Molyneux Herbert, Earl of Carnarvon also known as Lord Porchester.
Throughout the ‘50s and ‘60s Porchester and Elizabeth spent many, many hours together discussing racing.
But there was more to the relationship than racing.
Lord Mountbatten’s warning
In ‘Queen Elizabeth II, a woman who is not amused’ Davies writes (p.188): Elizabeth began to spend a great deal of time with Lord Porchester and they would frequently meet at Broadlands where Mountbatten would be their host. They would ride together, walk for hours with the dogs and sit and chat into the night. Mountbatten was concerned that Elizabeth was infatuated with the handsome Harry Porchester, perhaps even emotionally involved. After much thought Mountbatten took the unprecedented step of writing her a letter of warning.
‘I urge you to be more discreet in your relationship with Porchy’ wrote Mountbatten according to John Barratt. Mountbatten knew what was going on and was worried in case things got out of hand. He saw the way they were to each other, how close they had become, acting towards each other as though lovers. ‘I think there was also a sense of jealousy too. However, he was genuinely concerned that she and Porchy were spending too much time together at Broadlands and it was obvious that he believed they were becoming too involved. He told me so; he used to shake his head about it, not knowing how he should tackle the situation. Elizabeth was so animated when Porchy was around and they got on so well together.’
Elizabeth appeared to take little notice of Uncle Dickie’s warning for she continued to see much of Harry Porchester but the couple spent fewer weekends at Broadlands. Later they would travel abroad together on racing business and spend weekends together. Since 1975 Elizabeth and Porchy have often visited Kentucky together during the spring yearling sales.
The Cabinet papers of 1959
On January 1,1990 the Cabinet papers of the Macmillan government released for the year 1959 (the year that Prince Andrew was conceived) confirmed that the royal family was discussed in Cabinet on three occasions that year but the subject matter was sufficiently sensitive for the government to order that it be kept secret for a much longer period than normal. One of the items was stamped with a 50 year embargo – as opposed to the normal 30 years – and two items were locked away for 100 years not to be revealed until 2059.
What could possibly be serious enough to warrant this kind of secrecy?
It was virtually without precedent in times of normality. From recent times only the Cabinet documents relating to the Abdication remain precluded. In 1959 there were no wars, political upsets or constitutional crises. ‘Prince Philip- a critical biography’ by John Parker (p.200).
Appearance
In ‘The Royal Marriages’ Campbell writes (p.105): Andrew bears an uncanny resemblance to Lord Carnarvon/Porchester and that similarity goes beyond the facial. Unlike the other males in the royal family who are slender like Philip, Andrew is chunky like Lord Carnarvon/Porchester and the two sons born to his marriage.
In ‘The Royals’ Kitty Kelley writes (p.421): Prince Philip had agreed in 1993 to be profiled by journaliist Fiammenta Rocco in ‘The Independent on Sunday.’ The reporter referred to the allegation that Prince Andrew is not really Prince Philip’s son, that he is the son of Lord Porchester, the Queen’s racing manager.
Philip did not flinch. Knowing that any reaction would be front-page news, he said nothing. He sat as impassive as stone. “Like a child with porridge in his mouth” the reporter later told a colleague. She had addressed the issue of his son’s paternity because it had been raised weeks before by Nigel Dempster in ‘The New York Times Magazine.’
“Get hold of a picture of Prince Andrew and then one of Lord Porchester at the same age” Dempster was quoted as telling writer Christopher Hitchens. “You’ll see that Prince Philip could never have been Andy’s father.”
The Palace did not challenge the published statement.
Secrecy surrounding birth
In ‘The Royal Marriages’ Campbell writes (p.105): Baby Andrew was kept under wraps as no other royal baby has been before or since. The world received no glimpse of him, not even when he was christened, for there were no official photographers present to record what is normally a happy semi-official occasion shared by the royal family and the public alike. In public relations terms such secrecy was a disaster which would have long-term repercussions.
Coming on top of society’s knowledge that Philip and Lilibet’s marriage had been nothing more than a viable but unromantic partnership and that he had been absent during much of the period when she might have been impregnated, it only fed the fires of lurid speculation as to whether Philip was actually Andrew’s father.
The rumours
In ‘The Royal Marriages’ Campbell writes (p.106): I had no idea how widespread the rumours about Andrew’s paternity were until I visited Ireland for the launch of ‘Diana in private.’ I had always assumed that what I had heard was confined to the narrow circle surrounding the Queen, her court and her cousins, but, to my consternation, Terry Keane of the prestigious Sunday
Independent asked me if I could confirm whether it was true that Prince Andrew was Lord Porchester’s and not Prince Philip’s son.
I mumbled something diplomatic and unquotable, hoping to sidestep the issue as gently as possible. I was therefore astonished to pick up the paper the following day and read a graphic description of the whole encounter which left no doubt in the readers’ minds regarding Ms. Keane’s views on the subject. In her book ‘Elizabeth’ Sarah Bradford also mentions the rumours about the paternity of Andrew (p. 284).
THE PLUNKET AFFAIR
In ‘Queen Elizabeth II, a woman who is not amused’ Davies writes (p.193): Eliazabeth’s only other emotional involvement was with Baron Patrick Plunket, Deputy Master of the Royal Household, probably her favourite courtier. Patrick’s relationship with Elizabeth became remarkably close and he was a stabilising influence in the palace for a quarter of a century. In private he would greet her with a kiss on the cheek which she welcomed. For over ten years, throughout the late1960s and early 1970s Elizabeth and Plunket would go out secretly together, to dinner, and to the cinema and, occasionally, the theatre. They would have supper and enjoy a glass of champagne, no one aware of their identities. Frequently on a Monday evening Elizabeth and Plunket would leave the palace in Elizabeth’s old Rover, she dressed in a coat with a scarf over her head to conceal her identity. They would often visit a cinema, usually the Odeon in King’s Road, Chelsea, two miles from Buckingham Palace. Plunket would pay, always securing two seats at the back of the auditorium, though at that time there were no assigned seats. After the show they would sometimes walk across King’s Road to Raffles Club, a highly respectable dining and drinking place which was decorated like a library and not frequented by the aristocracy. They would ask for a table at the back of the dining area, the darkest spot in the club. Together they would enjoy a light meal and a glass of champagne or wine before driving back to the palace around midnight. Apparently no one recognized Elizabeth, perhaps because they never expected to see the sovereign in such places. These secret outings were an absolute joy to Elizabeth. They were the only moments in her life when she could be among ordinary people, unrecognized and unknown, enjoying mundane life like everyone else. Prince Edward’s ‘coincidental resemblance’ to the Plunket family is a taboo topic of conversation in royal circles – ‘The Royal Marriages’ by Lady Colin Campbell, page 122.
When Patrick Plunket (far left) died of cancer in 1975 Elizabeth wept openly. Plunket is buried in the royal family’s private burial ground at Frogmore in Windsor Park. His grave is surmounted by an elegant tombstone which the Queen designed. Frogmore is where King Edward VIII and the Duchess of Windsor are buried. The ex- king had to make a personal plea to the Queen to permit the Duchess be buried beside him.
You might wonder why the Deputy Master of the Royal Household was buried in the royal family’s private burial ground.
The late Princess of Wales
Recently comments have been made that Prince Harry, third in line to the throne, shows a very strong resemblance to James Hewitt, Princess Diana’s former lover. Harry has the same lanky frame, sandy hair, freckles and the distinctive Hewitt jawline.
The ‘New York Post’ recently quoted a source saying “ Harry look awfully like James Hewitt. It’s not just the red hair – Diana’s family, the Spencers, contain a few redheads so that should explain that.
But put a picture of Hewitt at the same age next to one of Harry and you’ll see what everyone is talking about.”
Princess Anne
There have been suggestions that Zara Philips, Princess Anne’s daughter and tenth in line to the throne is the result of an adulterous affair between Princess Anne and her then detective, D/Sergeant Peter Cross of the Metropolitan Police royal protection squad.
In ‘The Royal Marriages’ Campbell writes (pp.229-230): Towards the end of 1979 a burly, blonde policeman named Peter Cross was assigned to Anne’s staff. Although he was married and the father of two young children the attractive detective was man who found women as irresistible as they found him. Anne ‘adores men’ as a spokesman at Buckingham Palace ill-advisedly stated, so it was inevitable that the electric currents would flow between the lonely, impassioned princess and her masculine protector, some three years her senior.
According to Peter Cross he and Anne quickly struck up a secret relationship which began late one night after he had accompanied her on an official engagement. They were in the kitchen at Gatcombe Park having a drink and talking about the events of the day when she rested a hand on his knee.
Astonished at first, he quickly recovered his composure and acquitted himself like one of nature’s gentlemen. Thereafter he was her firm confidant, sharing the secrets of her private life while playing his protective role in public. (In an interesting comment on the royal/bodyguard relationship James Hewitt in his book ‘Love and War’ (Blake Publishing) says that Diana claimed that other members of the royal family had had affairs with their bodyguards.)
It was an ideal relationship for a married royal to have. Sergeant Cross could offer Anne all the support she needed without anyone having cause to ask questions. In September 1980 Anne discovered that she was pregnant. To deflect potential gossip Peter Cross was transferred to a mundane uniformed police job in Croydon. Anne remained in close touch with Cross and telephoned him as soon as her daughter Zara was born to share the happy experience with him.
In ‘Queen Elizabeth, a woman who is not amused’ Nicholas Davies writes (p.247) : After Zara’s birth, Anne and Peter Cross continued their adulterous affair, occasionally spending afternoons making love at the home of a friendly police officer in Surrey and romantic nights at an unused cottage on the Gatcombe estate. Princess Anne took the most enormous risks but she loved
Peter Cross and was prepared to risk excruciating scandal for herself, her children, her husband, her mother and the entire royal family.
CONCLUSION
Any reasonable person reading these extracts from the books mentioned will have no difficulty in coming to the view that there is very strong anecdotal evidence that: (i) Prince Andrew’s biological father is Lord Porchester; (ii) Prince Edward’s biological father is the late Baron Patrick Plunket; (iii) Prince Harry’s biological father is James Hewitt; (iv) Zara Philip’s biological father is Peter Cross.
Hence the call by REPUBLIC in the United Kingdom for DNA testing of all royals who receive money from the British taxpayer. They say that “if an institution is founded upon heredity, then it is only right that that heredity be proved.”
The greatest danger to the royal family lies in the possibility of an investigative reporter obtaining samples of hair, saliva etc. by covert means from the various players in the adulterous affairs quoted and submitting them for DNA testing. It has not gone un-noticed that during a visit to a cheese factory in Australia the Duke of Edinburgh refused to wear a protective cap as all other people are required to. It has been suggested that he did not wear the cap because it might have retained hairs from his head which could have been used in DNA testing.
If DNA tests were to prove that Lord Porchester is Prince Andrew’s biological father and that the late Baron Patrick Plunket was Prince Edward’s biological father then the Queen would be in deep trouble and the United Kingdom could have a constitutional crisis.
If it was proved scientifically that the Queen had had four children to three different fathers then the scandal would have international ramifications, the Abdication Crisis would pale into insignificance and the monarchy would fall in a great heap.
These rumours have surrounded the Queen for many years but until recently there has been no method of either proving or disproving them.
DNA tests can now prove paternity.
In all other respects the Queen has been an exemplary monarch and it is unfair that these stories about her alleged affairs and the paternity of two of her children should persist into her old age.
Furthermore, REPUBLIC and ThroneOut make a very strong point when they say that if someone is in receipt of public money because of heredity then they should prove that heredity.
The British government should grasp the nettle and put an end to these rumours by: (i) ordering DNA tests as called for by REPUBLIC and ThroneOut; (ii) opening the 1959 Cabinet papers for public inspection.
Until such time as the British government does this then the rumours will circulate and the institution of monarchy and the edifice of the British state will be tainted.
If there is nothing to fear, members of the royal family should welcome a simple DNA test involving a swab taken from inside the cheek or a blood sample. If they refuse to take such a test the inevitable conclusions will be drawn by the British people who will wonder why they should continue to pay taxes to support a bunch of whores and adulterers.
...................................
No comments:
Post a Comment