But why are the British so ready to swallow the idea of a gay scandal, asks laura tennant |
 |
The gay sex rumour currently swirling around Buckingham Palace involving a royal aide and cocaine chopped with a Harrods store card turn out to be utterly without foundation. Hence the vigour with which its victim is prosecuting his attempted blackmailers.
Yet a lack of facts has not prevented the story being widely reported and discussed around the water cooler as - whether or not true - at least credible.
Why on earth are we so willing to believe this stuff? Well, for a start, it wouldn't have been the first time a Windsor has taken a walk on the wild side. The Cleveland Street Scandal implicated Queen Victoria's grandson the Duke of Clarence in the goings-on at a homosexual brothel. Had he lived, he would have been our third gay king (the first two were Edward II and James I).
In the Thirties, the Duke of Kent, son of
|
|
 |
 |
|
| Life at court has, anyway, got a distinctly gay flavour. Think of the frills, the furbelows and the footmen
|
|
|
George V, had affairs with Noel Coward and - probably - Chips Channon. In the Nineties, persistent rumours - never substantiated - circulated about Prince Edward's sexuality.
Life at court has, anyway, got a distinctly gay flavour. Think of the frills, the furbelows, the gilt chairs, the footmen in tight-fitting pantaloons, the OTT decor, the sheer gossipy costume drama of the place. Ruritania has nothing on Buckingham Palace.
The Queen Mother's staff was famously almost entirely homosexual; she got to hang out with witty, bitchy, good-looking men, and her entourage got to camp it up, er, royally. And in 1982, after Michael Fagan's intrusion into the Queen's bedroom, Britain reeled at the news that her chief bodyguard, Michael Trestrail, had enjoyed frequent sexual relations with a male prostitute.
In most rich, privileged circles a cocktail of leisure, money, unlimited access to drink and drugs and a steady stream of starstruck groupies produces a very AC/DC approach to sexuality. It's not surprising that the public assumes the Royals are no different. 
FIRST POSTED NOVEMBER 1, 2007
|
Blackmail in the internet age
