Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Men plead not guilty to Royal blackmail charges

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. It’s very sad that members of the Royal family still feel they have to hide their sexuality. The days of blackmail are over for most gay men but, as in many other ways, that family are living in the past.

  2. Robert, ex-pat Brit 29 Oct 2007, 1:35pm

    Bob, maybe we should re-think the relevancy of the monarchy. Lets face it, its anachronistic and irrelevant in the 21st century. What good do they really do anyway?

  3. Oh my God, one of them gets blackmailed so suddenly we should get rid of them.Hasn’t that been the attitude towards gay people for decades?Blackmail is a heinous crime playing on a person’s vulnerability aimed at shattering someone’s life – as anyone who has been blackmailed will tell. This wasn’t about exposing hypocrisy or anything remotely justifiable. It was about someone seeing an opportunity to take advantage and snatching itThe victim was should be getting our sympathy, even if only for now.The vultures circling to have the heads of the royal family could at least have the decency to allow this to blow over before closing in.

  4. Peter Rivendell 29 Oct 2007, 2:34pm

    Can they really keep a lid on this one? There already seems to be clear favourite on the Internet…

  5. Sitster Mary Clarence 29 Oct 2007, 3:15pm

    Very much like your homepage Peter, and to save me a bit of time, who is the clear favourite?

  6. Peter Rivendell 29 Oct 2007, 3:37pm

    I don’t think Pink news would appreciate that much…?

  7. Dominick J. Di Noto 29 Oct 2007, 4:24pm

    What a waste of time and space. There is nothing to this “wish it were something juicey to read!”The headline was a stupid grabber, not only that but the TV news media, especially here in the states, was so friggin misleading. What a way to get our attention off of REAL issues for this fake crap!

  8. If we think it is any less difficult, for many men in particular, to be open and honest if they want to be regarding their sexual orientation, today than in times past or for those in the limelight then we are kidding ourselves. Even young gay guys across the country still face daily prejudice/scorn and bullying …at school, in the work place, where they live etc etc. Fact is our SO is a private matter and we should be allowed to live with that as we choose.As for the Royals…minor or otherwise; it would be great if we did have one who had the integrity to be out, open and dating….The monarchy is a fact of life I can live with, just wish they would take a lead in the 21st C, not constantly give the impression they are hiding from it.

  9. Sitster Mary Clarence 29 Oct 2007, 6:18pm

    I’ve still not been able to identify the clear favourite – any pointers anyone?

  10. Peter Rivendell 29 Oct 2007, 7:39pm

    Look at maybe one of the Queen’s second cousins who has admitted cocaine use in the past…?

  11. Far be it from me to suggest that a genuinely shocking headline would have been “Prince Edward Not in Gay Sex Blackmail Plot”.

  12. seems we havent moved on that far if you can still be blackmailed for being gay

  13. Sitster Mary Clarence 30 Oct 2007, 1:32am

    I think the cocaine might have been a bit of an issue though

  14. Peter Rivendell 30 Oct 2007, 10:24am

    Yes, the drugs is the real story here. I don’t think the UK, at any rate, would have much of a problem with a minor gay royal, unless the details were especially ‘salacious’. A Premiership footballer would be an entirely different matter.

  15. 1 we don’t need a Royal Family.2 we don’t need to know who they’re sleeping with.3 we don’t need to have a gay outed just because he or she is a “royal” UNLESS they’ve preached homophobia

  16. This is all so silly, why not name the person because it will come out eventually.Rather like our own dear George Michael after his cottaging problem in the USA, this Royal could actually do well out of the event if he/she handles it the right way. Contact Max Clifford and go public is my advice.Oh yes, and by the way, even I was able to find out the person’s name by doing a bit of on line digging so the secret is out anyway.

  17. Robert, ex-pat Brit 30 Oct 2007, 6:41pm

    Roberto, I’m with you. Why a royal should have special protection is beyond me. What is it that Buckingham Palace is so ashamed of anyway? If it were your or I, our names would have been published. Maybe the royals are above the law which they shouldn’t be in a democracy. At least Diana brought some modern style and glamour to the dowdy house of Windsor in her brief life so tragically shortened.

  18. Its so pathetic, society’s infatuation with classes and scandal.Who and what is the queen? she’s a symbol,an institution,the nations inheritance, uhmmm… thats it. Do we realy care about the royals (except if you’re a royal yourself) Gosh, they are anyway so dog ugly i wouldnt care if they all disappear in thin air. Why are we so curious who this Royal is? I tell you why, just to laugh and be assured that they are just like us with a speech slightly slower than ours, thats why. now we can all continue with with our lives.

  19. Why do we assume that what the blackmailers say, is true? It seems eveident that it was untrue, being the reason prompt action was taken!

  20. in the thirties the Establishment, with the conivance of the press, kept the lid on the relationship between Edward and Wallis Simpson, despite the fact it was common knowledge abroad.This is different in that it’s a blackmail case, but again, the name is out there. Just not here.

  21. Robert, ex-pat Brit 7 Dec 2007, 2:42pm

    So once the trial is over on December 20th, is the press still barred from revealing the identity of the “victim”? We all now know who it is, what a stupid, arcane law and so much for freedom of the press.

  22. Sister Mary Clarence 20 Dec 2007, 9:42pm

    It is common practice for the victim of blackmail to have their identity protected. So it would seem that you’re all supporting the victim being treated less favourably because of his parentage.I take it you all believe that we have exclusive rights when it comes to eqality then?

  23. SMC no I don’t think he should be outed just because of his ancestry. However, he has benefitted from that, and that’s the only reason why it’s news.Should we perhaps reflect on our society where:a) a man is blackmailed because of his sexualityb) society is prurient enough to want to know.It would be nice if a royal did come out as it would help us in terms of role models (even better a footballer!!), but it shouldn’t be newsworthy except as short-term gossip”?However, if he’d been vocallyt anti-gay, I see no problem with a hypocrite being outed.

  24. Sister Mary Clarence 21 Dec 2007, 1:10am

    I think regardless of what we reflect on, his anonymity is being protected in the same way as it would be for anyone else.Equality and equal treatment should be an absolute, not something that is mitigated by circumstance and should not be subject to negotiation.The exact nature of the blackmail attempt is the subject of speculation at present so it may or may not have anything to do with homosexual acts. If the rumours are however true, I think the cocaine aspect of them may be the bigger issue.

  25. SMCI would agree with you except that the name is out there. What it means is thgat an item of news (albeit unimportant and a bit prurient) can be easily obtained if one hops on Eurostar, o rdoes some net surfing, but not in this country.If anonymity could be guaranteed generally then there wouldn’t be this discussion, however it can’t and hasn’t been. We are now in a trivial rerun of the abdication scandal, and others where royals are protected by UK papers.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all