The row over Prince Charles in Canada reminded me of the role of the Royal Family in personifying those timeless traditions which comprise the spine of British culture. One of these great Royal traditions, which has continued right down to the present generations, is buggering the valet.
31 May should be a national holiday in celebration of this great tradition. We should call it Bugger the Valet day. On 31 May 1810 Ernest Duke of Cumberland, fifth son of George III, was buggering his valet Neale. While Cumberland was fully engaged, another servant named Sellis impertinently entered the room. Naturally the Duke, having ordered Sellis to wait and be spoken to, took out his sword and ran Sellis through seven times. Sellis remained impertinent, and even after being stabbed the first time, had the temerity to grab a candlestick and hit the Duke hard on the face, inflicting a disfiguring wound. This of course is described in official histories (and I see on Wikipedia) as having been received in the Napoleonic Wars.
Over the years, seven journalists were imprisoned for publishing an account of Sellis’ death. The Duke failed to pay Neale the money he had promised him to lie that Sellis had attacked the Duke, and subsequently Neale talked rather a lot. The first journalist imprisoned, Henry White, died of disease contracted in prison. Henry White deserves to be remembered.
Cumberland was to marry a woman very widely believed across the German speaking world to be herself a murderess, Princess Frederica of Mecklenburg Strelitz, whose two earlier husbands had died, the second particularly unexpectedly and conveniently.
During the reign of King William IV, Cumberland was second in line to the throne after Victoria. Victoria’s widowed mother, the Duchess of Kent, was shagging her Private Secretary, Sir John Conroy. Actually every summer in Victoria’s teens they did their shagging in Townley House, which I can see now from my study window.
Ten months of the year they lived in Kensington Palace, and Conroy put Victoria into seclusion. Conroy was hated – he was far too middle class to be shagging a Duchess. There was a successful film by that awful far right “Lord” Julian Fellowes a few years ago called The Young Victoria. Conroy was portrayed as a caricature villain, and conventional historians have accepted the monarchist line that his seclusion of Victoria was to maximize his own influence of control.
What Conroy himself said, and is almost never published, was that he was keeping Victoria under very close guard because he was terrified she would be poisoned or otherwise murdered by the heir to the throne after her, her uncle Cumberland, and his wife. Where this is ever mentioned by historians, it is to ridicule it as a crazy pretext.
In fact Cumberland was a murderer, and Frederica very probably was too. Conroy was absolutely right to protect Victoria from Cumberland. What the establishment would not admit then or now was that there was a very real reason for Conroy to apprehend this danger. Ernest Duke of Cumberland had killed Sellis. His wife Frederica was reputed throughout Europe to have poisoned her second husband in order to marry Ernest and gain the possibility of becoming Queen of England. Only Victoria stood between them and the throne, in an age of high mortality.
When William IV died, Victoria became Queen but as a female could not inherit the other Kingdom of Hanover. Cumberland therefore became King Ernest of Hanover. He abolished parliament and persecuted those regarded as liberal, including the Brothers Grimm who he dismissed from their University posts.
Ahh, our beloved Royal family! Remember – 31 May is Bugger the Valet Day.
The story is much bigger than that, and involves Diana, her butler, tapes, which then became the subject of that trial of Burrell which was stopped when the queen remembered that conversation…
He died quite young, didn’t he, that other butler.
Herbie
Thanks for that detail. Yes, that account by the Duke is even less believable – in fact, given the Duke was injured quite badly, not believable at all.
As for searching for George III’s marriage to Hannah Lightfoot Mary Pendered’s book is one of the best.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quaker-Hannah-Lightfoot-Relations-George/dp/B00085NNB0
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_fair_Quaker.html?id=j35mAAAAMAAJ
Putin: Charles’s ‘Nazi’ remarks wrong
President Putin condemns Prince Charles’s reported remarks comparing his actions to those of the Nazis, saying his words were “not what monarchs do”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27558825
RT got back at the royals and so did Tony Gosling.
Putin’s TV station sneers at UK royal family’s Nazi links
WATCH: Russia Today highlights embarrassing ties in deepening row over Prince Charles’s comparison of Russian president to Hitler
http://www.timesofisrael.com/putins-tv-station-sneers-at-uk-royal-familys-nazi-links/
Prince Charles strikes another blow for the British republic
http://rt.com/op-edge/161020-prince-charles-strikes-blow/
Mr Scorgie
I’m a little surprised by you, Doug.
In answer to my question to Craig (thanks for “answering ” on his behalf, by the way):
“I should like to hear from Craig which of the British Royals currently alive has buggered, or is buggering, his valet(s).”
you supplied the following two bits of information:
1/. George Smith alleged that he was raped by Michael Fawcett, a favoured servant of the Prince Charles; and
2. Michael Fawcett was himself in a homosexual relationship with the Prince of Wales.
Now, as you’ll be aware, Michael Fawcett isn’t a member of the Royal family.
Therefore, you haven’t answered my question, Doug, have you.
Never mind, perhaps Craig will.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the meantime, could I remind you that you owe me a link or links :
““Vatican defends Palestinian sovereignty ahead of papal visit”
Yes Mary but that means the Vatican recognising Israel as a Jewish state run by Jews for the benefit of Jews; ”
__________________
Doug, are you putting that idea forward as an opinion of yours of as a fact?
If the latter, could you please supply a link or links.”
Herbie
“He died quite young, didn’t he, that other butler.”
______________________
Yes, 45 is quite young these days, isn’t it.
Do you think that the death might not have been entirely natural and that foul play might have been involved, Herbie?
The only thing I get outraged about is people spreading falsehoods, whether it be conspiracy theories or revisionist history. New versions crop up all the time, they sell books but don’t necessarily advance our understanding. Just because it is new doesn’t make it any more true than the accepted version, unless you really want to believe that the Chinese “discovered America in 1421, that Stonehenge was a neolithic A&E or that the loss of the Titanic was an insurance job.
We’ve also yet to see any evidence.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RDvV_zJyL5UC&pg=PT449&lpg=PT449&dq=jacobites+divine+right&source=bl&ots=QBRnEdO8CC&sig=_Y7n2RoIlofqQjicxGCq8QyyPvw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IMSAU-GwCNOA7QbtzIGgCg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=jacobites%20divine%20right&f=false
Hi Craig Muray
where can we read true history in a book?
can you tell me what caused the war on 1812 in the american continent?
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella) !
24 May, 2014 – 5:11 pm
“Now, as you’ll be aware, Michael Fawcett isn’t a member of the Royal family.”
No but Prince Charles is.
“Michael Fawcett was himself [allegedly] in a homosexual relationship with the Prince of Wales.”
Read the posts properly next time Habbabkuk.
I think I need to read this to get the Trevelyans straight.
A Very British Family: The Trevelyans and Their World
Laura Trevelyan
The Trevelyans are unique in British social and political history: a family which for several generations dedicated themselves to the service and chronicling of their country. From their inauspicious beginnings in a small dwelling in Cornwall to the present day, some Trevelyans have been famous and distinguished, others less so, but for a hundred years from the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century family members from Lord Macaulay to G.M. Trevelyan contributed to both the writing and the making of history. This book is primarily the tale of the five men who flourished during this period – Charles Edward, George Otto, Charles Philips, George Macaulay and Humphry Trevelyan – and the clever and formidable women they married. Including many vivid portraits of the most influential members of this remarkable family, The Trevelyans casts light on the period of enormous social and cultural change in which they lived and examines why they chose not to simply exploit their position as landed gentry but instead to take their place at the centre of scholarship and politics.
~~~
On the other hand perhaps I don’t having seen the name of the author. She is the BBC UN correspondent and is part of the Trevelyan family.
Seems that we should be glad that the Duke of Cumberland was constantly engaging in sexual excesses.
His son, who became George V of Hanover, was a serious suitor for Victoria’s hand until he suddenly became blind at 14. Did not stop him from becoming king there, though.
Wonder if George was infected with syphilis as a fetus or a child by his father?
What is the evidence for this story? How could one prove either the guilt or the innocence of the Ernest Cumberland?
“where can we read true history in a book?”
That’s a very good question. One of the problems is that the Royal Family are like the rest of us, except rich and powerful. It used to be that their version of events was the only one that made it into the news, and nothing seems to have changed. They are not questioned because they are rich and powerful. Their version is the royal history.
The establishment’s version on non-Royal history is also the one presented by big money, power and those win the wars. Historians are diggers and are not guilty. They get some facts. But to get the full facts is impossible and historians have to bite their tongues when history presented as fact is clearly questionable, as in the Wikipedia version of Hannah Lightfoot’s marriage to George III. Most high society people knew about it at the time, but chose not to discredit the throne. In fact, George III’s marriage to Hannah Lightfoot would mean that the whole Royal line down to baby George was a lie.
But Doug Scorgie posted a story that cannot be published in the UK. Likewise the film “Unlawful Killing” which takes its name from the actual coroner’s verdict into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed. The film, which I have seen, makes the case that although the verdict was unlawful killing the media presented it as though they were chased to their deaths by the paparazzi, which is nonsense.
Where do you find a true history? If you find one let me know.
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella) !
24 May, 2014 – 5:11 pm
Yes Mary but that means the Vatican recognising Israel as a Jewish state run by Jews for the benefit of Jews…
“Doug, are you putting that idea forward as an opinion of yours of as a fact?”
Just plain logic Habbabkuk
The Vatican Secretary of State (Pietro Parolin I believe) is quoted as saying:
“On the one hand, Israel’s right to exist in peace and security within internationally recognised boundaries and the Palestinian people’s right to have a homeland, sovereign and independent, the right to move around freely, the right to live in dignity,”
So it is clear that the Vatican is pushing the two-state solution one for the Palestinians in which the UN will insist be a democracy for all its people and one for the Jews which the UN will insist will be a democracy for all its people but which the Zionists will ignore and demand to be recognised as a Jewish (only) state.
But that is only my view on the subject.
I’m sure ‘Buggering the Valet’ or steward must be a Naval tradition as well. As a young recruit I was told to look carefully on the lower deck ‘for the golden rivet’ -apparently every warship had one…
Every Naval ship had a ‘Sods Opera’ where the youngest ratings , with thoroughly shaved legs, would transform into beautiful* women dancing in grass skirts.
Any video reference of these ‘opera’s’ are private or lost to the archives maybe because women women were officially allowed to go to sea onboard Royal Navy vessels since 1993.
Interestingly in Nelson’s day Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood, discovered that women had been brought onboard his flagship, he ordered the women ashore because of ‘…the mischief they never fail to create wherever they are’. He also wrote that ‘I never knew a woman brought to sea in a ship that some mischief did not befall the vessel’.
The Earl Saint Vincent, another friend of Nelson’s, was also against women coming to sea, largely due to their washing their clothes in the ship’s fresh water.
*esp. after nine months at sea.
George Smith’s claim of a sexual relationship between the Prince of Wales and Fawcett was repeated in a legal statement issued by him to the Mail on Sunday newspaper. In response, Michael Fawcett took a high court injunction to prevent their disclosure. The injunction was granted .
The story still cannot be published in the UK.
The cause of Smith’s death is unknown.
http://listverse.com/2011/08/02/10-censored-news-topics-and-events/
Kempe
24 May, 2014 – 5:19 pm
“The only thing I get outraged about is people spreading falsehoods…”
LOL!!!
“The only thing I get outraged about is people spreading falsehoods, whether it be conspiracy theories or revisionist history.”
In that case when new facts are found history should not be revised?
Can you understand Kempe why Doug Scorgie made fun of you? 🙂
Interesting Doug – more of the story here:
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/prince-charles-has-not-had-protection.html
Mr Scorgie
Your “plain logic” has broke down because you skip subject half way through your comment.
“The Vatican Secretary of State (Pietro Parolin I believe) is quoted as saying:
“On the one hand, Israel’s right to exist in peace and security within internationally recognised boundaries and the Palestinian people’s right to have a homeland, sovereign and independent, the right to move around freely, the right to live in dignity,”
So it is clear that the Vatican is pushing the two-state solution”
_________________
Yes, with you so far. The Vatican favours a two-state solution. So far so good.
But then your comment goes on to talk about the United Nations (and the “Zionists”) and not the Vatican. I quote :
“…two-state solution one for the Palestinians in which the UN will insist be a democracy for all its people and one for the Jews which the UN will insist will be a democracy for all its people but which the Zionists will ignore and demand to be recognised as a Jewish (only) state.”
This sort of conflation and artful changes of emphasis is dishonhest and therefore unconvincing, Doug.
*******************
La vita è bella, life is good!
Mr Scorgie,
When you’re considering your response to my comment, bear in mind what you said in the comment which attracte”d my attention; that was :
“Yes Mary but that means the Vatican recognising Israel as a Jewish state run by Jews for the benefit of Jews…”
Yoy have failed to demonstrate that so far, Doug.
This is a photograph of the gravestone of Charlotte Augusta Catherin Dalton, the granddaughter of George III from his marriage to Hannah Lightfoot.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=77266266
Sir Joshua Reynolds allegedly painted Hannah Lightfoot three times. Two of them have survived. This is one the other can be found on Wikipedia, which at least gets that right.
http://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Portrait-of-a-lady–traditionally-identi/6D439B993096F577
Mr Scorgie
““Now, as you’ll be aware, Michael Fawcett isn’t a member of the Royal family.”
No but Prince Charles is.
“Michael Fawcett was himself [allegedly] in a homosexual relationship with the Prince of Wales.””
______________________
You’re not on form today are you, Doug. Let me help you.
Prince Charles is a Royal.
George Smith was a valet.
Michael Fawcett is neither a Royal nor a valet.
All clear so far, Doug? Then we’ll continue.
Michael Fawcett (not a valet, nor a Royal)allegedly raped George Smith (a valet).
You cite an alleged homosexual relationship between Michael Fawcett (neither a Royal nor a valet) and Prince Charles ( a Royal).
The question I put to Craig was :
“I should like to hear from Craig which of the British ROYALs currently alive has buggered, or is buggering, his VALET(s).”.
So you haven’t really answered it, have you Doug.
Perhaps you should leave it to Craig after all, Doug. 🙂
The historical controversy that is being fleshed out in the comments above is totally irrelevant; we all know that there are a great many interesting and risqué historical mysteries which no doubt could stimulate a similar intelligent debate. The simple purpose of today’s slimy post is to cast a slur on our contemporary Royals.
The post from Habbabkuk (La vita è bella) at 3:52 pm asks Mr Murray to firm up his vague allegations, but the latter has ducked this volley and the subsequent reference to Wikipedia by another poster does not really hit the right spot – today’s article is in bad taste.
John Goss 24 May, 2014 – 3:55 pm
It’s half time!
I once saw for myself evidence of our Royal family’s nazi connections. I’ve mentioned it before on this blog here:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/03/fascist-switzerland-strikes-back/#comment-397106
“I once attended a craft fair in the grounds of Glamis Castle, the childhood home of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret. Someone who worked there showed me something interesting.
The fences on the estate include cast iron ratchet devices for tensioning the wire. Every wire had one wherever there was an extra strong post, a strainer as it’s called, so there were hundreds of them. And every one of these devices had a swastika on it. Perhaps the royals used their family connections to acquire some left over German military equipment.
I took a photo and sent a copy to Private Eye, but they didn’t use it or even reply. I would imagine the swastikas are still there if anybody wants to create a bit of mischief.
I’ve still got the original photo somewhere.”
” In that case when new facts are found history should not be revised? ”
If new facts come to light yes, but we haven’t been presented with any yet. Some fanciful story printed in the 18th century equivalent of the Daily Sport by itself doesn’t represent a fact. Perhaps in 200 years time Craig Murray VIII will be claiming that a WW2 bomber really was found on the moon but that those nasty Whig Historians hushed it up.
Canadian Free Press Dianas secret tapes
The cameraman who filmed these revelations admits that he cannot “quote chapter and verse in fine detail”, but he is adamant that on the videos Diana claims:
A member of Charles’ staff told her about sexual misconduct within the Royal Household staff — and that Charles “tolerated it”.
She describes a Royal staff party that was like “something out of Caligula”.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/thomas100406.htm
The first diary (tape) was recorded on 7th March 2007 6 months later on the 31 st August 2007 she was dead
I bent over to put some luggage in the back of a chauffeur car, which led one married passenger handing me the stuff to the conclusion that the appropriate action for him to take was to put his hand in the obvious place.
Have I got to pay back the tip for grassing on the coot?
Laysa ba’ad kufri thanb/ none of their crimes is greater than their crime of disbelief.
Craig,
I enter the debate to suggest this for discussion:-
A. We do not have in philosophical and/or moral issues any absolutes.
B. However, we can on a “utilitarian basis” determine the greatest good for the greatest numbers.
C. I then move forward as regards the issue of buggery.
I was born in Jamaica in 1954. I attended school in England from sixth form onwards through to University and post-graduate studies and resided fully 10 years there. I thus, have a smattering of knowledge of the English and some good friends I made there. More importantly, England has more than a smattering of us here in the Caribbean, having benefited from us for over 300 years of exploitation ( but that is not the topic of discussion today). No – you “buggers” – we shall now reflect on buggery. Please read these two articles below:-
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140521/lead/lead1.html
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140523/cleisure/cleisure3.html
The students at the University of the West Indies are soon going to protest the sacking of a University Professor, for what at its simplest I understand to be the following as his scientific opinion :–
If one engages in buggery, then if there is an infected person being buggered, there is a greater probability that the participants in the buggery will be infected.
For my part, I take the following position:-
i) Individuals are free to do what they want behind closed doors.
ii) But, as the former Jamaican Prime Minister said in his support of retention of the buggery law ( i.e. a statute passed during the era of British colonialism in the 1800s) – it is better to have a moral standard set and have the law remain on the books.
iii) The old buggery law for maybe 60 years or more has ( truth be told) not seen any convictions in just about all of the English speaking Caribbean, but it remains on the statute books in Jamaica and other English speaking Caribbean countries.
So – what do we do?
I think that buggery is physically, by its very nature, an unhealthy practice. Unlike vaginal sex ( where a vagina may sometimes be infected) the bugger is always indulging ( literally) in shit.
Let the debate begin.
CB