Post by Salem6 on Nov 7, 2003 7:35:41 GMT
The Prince of Wales has denied he was involved in a serious incident allegedly witnessed by a servant.
Details of the allegations cannot be published for legal reasons and Prince Charles issued a statement on Thursday night, saying "this allegation is untrue".
The denial, issued from Clarence House, came after the Guardian newspaper won a High Court battle to name former royal aide Michael Fawcett as the person trying to stop allegations from being printed by the Mail on Sunday.
The Mail on Sunday was blocked on Saturday night from publishing a story about Mr Fawcett.
The Guardian told the court it had no intention of repeating the allegations, but had a right to name Mr Fawcett.
"It is important, however, to state clearly that the allegation is entirely untrue" Statement from Prince Charles.
The statement from the Prince, who is in Oman on an official visit, said: "In recent days, there have been media reports concerning an allegation that a former Royal Household employee witnessed an incident some years ago involving a senior member of the Royal Family.
"The speculation needs to be brought to an end.
"The allegation was that The Prince of Wales was involved in the incident.
'Sadness'
"This allegation is untrue. The incident which the former employee claims to have witnessed did not take place."
The former employee referred to by Clarence House is not Mr Fawcett.
Fawcett named in royal servant row
The statement said there was "particular sadness" about this allegation because it was made by a former Royal employee "who, unfortunately, has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and has previously suffered from alcoholism following active service in the Falklands".
The Mail on Sunday had been expected to return to the High Court on Friday to challenge the original injunction won against.
But it said on Friday it believed the terms of the injunction had been relaxed, and there was no longer any need to head to court.
"There probably is a concern that it will get out - and when it does, their denial is out there and they hope it will somehow devalue the currency of whatever is printed" The BBC's Peter Hunt.
The prince's private secretary Sir Michael Peat conceded it was "rather unusual to make a statement about an unspecified allegation".
'Three reasons'
"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."
"Anyone who knows the Prince of Wales at all would appreciate that the allegation is totally ludicrous and, indeed, risible" Sir Michael Peat Prince Charles' private secretary
Sir Michael said he knew the allegation was untrue for "three principle reasons".
"Firstly, the Prince of Wales has told me it is untrue and I believe him implicitly," he said.
"Secondly, anyone who knows the Prince of Wales at all would appreciate that the allegation is totally ludicrous and, indeed, risible."
The third reason was that the person who made the allegation had "suffered from health problems and has made other, unrelated allegations which have been investigated by the police and found to be unsubstantiated."
Sir Michael would not be drawn on whether the allegation should be revealed.
'Libellous'
"Firstly it is not for me to judge what is and what isn't in the public interest," Sir Michael said.
"However, I would say that anyone who is a prominent public figure like the Prince of Wales is subject to a fairly steady stream of outlandish allegations.
"Generally they are dismissed and treated on their merits.
"For some reason this one doesn't seen to have been."
Mr Fawcett had argued that his name should not be revealed, as the publication of the story would seriously libel him.
But the Guardian's editor Alan Rusbridger said it would have set a dangerous precedent.
In March, Mr Fawcett was cleared of serious malpractice after a report alleged wrongdoing at St James's Palace - the prince's former residence - but he resigned as the prince's aide.
Clarence House statement in full
The statement in full of Clarence House - Prince Charles's London residence - on the "unspecified incident".
" In recent days, there have been media reports concerning an allegation that a former Royal Household employee witnessed an incident some years ago involving a senior member of the Royal Family.
The speculation needs to be brought to an end.
The allegation was that the Prince of Wales was involved in the incident.
This allegation is untrue. The incident which the former employee claims to have witnessed did not take place.
There is a particular sadness about this allegation because it was made by a former Royal Household employee who, unfortunately, has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and has previously suffered from alcoholism following active service in the Falklands.
He has, in the past, made other unrelated allegations, which the police have fully investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.
The newspaper group that sought to publish this allegation knew this and has described the former employee as 'hardly a reliable witness'.
This was why the newspaper concerned agreed to the injunction on Saturday afternoon.
The Prince of Wales has always tried to avoid becoming involved in disputes with the media, which he appreciates fulfils an important role.
It is important, however, to state clearly that the allegation is entirely untrue. "
Details of the allegations cannot be published for legal reasons and Prince Charles issued a statement on Thursday night, saying "this allegation is untrue".
The denial, issued from Clarence House, came after the Guardian newspaper won a High Court battle to name former royal aide Michael Fawcett as the person trying to stop allegations from being printed by the Mail on Sunday.
The Mail on Sunday was blocked on Saturday night from publishing a story about Mr Fawcett.
The Guardian told the court it had no intention of repeating the allegations, but had a right to name Mr Fawcett.
"It is important, however, to state clearly that the allegation is entirely untrue" Statement from Prince Charles.
The statement from the Prince, who is in Oman on an official visit, said: "In recent days, there have been media reports concerning an allegation that a former Royal Household employee witnessed an incident some years ago involving a senior member of the Royal Family.
"The speculation needs to be brought to an end.
"The allegation was that The Prince of Wales was involved in the incident.
'Sadness'
"This allegation is untrue. The incident which the former employee claims to have witnessed did not take place."
The former employee referred to by Clarence House is not Mr Fawcett.
Fawcett named in royal servant row
The statement said there was "particular sadness" about this allegation because it was made by a former Royal employee "who, unfortunately, has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and has previously suffered from alcoholism following active service in the Falklands".
The Mail on Sunday had been expected to return to the High Court on Friday to challenge the original injunction won against.
But it said on Friday it believed the terms of the injunction had been relaxed, and there was no longer any need to head to court.
"There probably is a concern that it will get out - and when it does, their denial is out there and they hope it will somehow devalue the currency of whatever is printed" The BBC's Peter Hunt.
The prince's private secretary Sir Michael Peat conceded it was "rather unusual to make a statement about an unspecified allegation".
'Three reasons'
"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."
"Anyone who knows the Prince of Wales at all would appreciate that the allegation is totally ludicrous and, indeed, risible" Sir Michael Peat Prince Charles' private secretary
Sir Michael said he knew the allegation was untrue for "three principle reasons".
"Firstly, the Prince of Wales has told me it is untrue and I believe him implicitly," he said.
"Secondly, anyone who knows the Prince of Wales at all would appreciate that the allegation is totally ludicrous and, indeed, risible."
The third reason was that the person who made the allegation had "suffered from health problems and has made other, unrelated allegations which have been investigated by the police and found to be unsubstantiated."
Sir Michael would not be drawn on whether the allegation should be revealed.
'Libellous'
"Firstly it is not for me to judge what is and what isn't in the public interest," Sir Michael said.
"However, I would say that anyone who is a prominent public figure like the Prince of Wales is subject to a fairly steady stream of outlandish allegations.
"Generally they are dismissed and treated on their merits.
"For some reason this one doesn't seen to have been."
Mr Fawcett had argued that his name should not be revealed, as the publication of the story would seriously libel him.
But the Guardian's editor Alan Rusbridger said it would have set a dangerous precedent.
In March, Mr Fawcett was cleared of serious malpractice after a report alleged wrongdoing at St James's Palace - the prince's former residence - but he resigned as the prince's aide.
Clarence House statement in full
The statement in full of Clarence House - Prince Charles's London residence - on the "unspecified incident".
" In recent days, there have been media reports concerning an allegation that a former Royal Household employee witnessed an incident some years ago involving a senior member of the Royal Family.
The speculation needs to be brought to an end.
The allegation was that the Prince of Wales was involved in the incident.
This allegation is untrue. The incident which the former employee claims to have witnessed did not take place.
There is a particular sadness about this allegation because it was made by a former Royal Household employee who, unfortunately, has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and has previously suffered from alcoholism following active service in the Falklands.
He has, in the past, made other unrelated allegations, which the police have fully investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.
The newspaper group that sought to publish this allegation knew this and has described the former employee as 'hardly a reliable witness'.
This was why the newspaper concerned agreed to the injunction on Saturday afternoon.
The Prince of Wales has always tried to avoid becoming involved in disputes with the media, which he appreciates fulfils an important role.
It is important, however, to state clearly that the allegation is entirely untrue. "