Royal blackmail plot
It’s being reported in a number of Sunday newspapers that a blackmail attempt against a member of the Royal Family, involving a sex video and an envelope containing cocaine, has been foiled by Scotland Yard.
Clarence House
The attempt was allegedly made in August by two men, one 30 and another 40, who demanded payment of £50,000 ($102,500) in return for the video. That the sum was relatively small in the circumstances suggests this was carried out by amateurs rather than professional criminals.
The description of the contents of the video, which involves the participation of a Royal aide, has echoes of previous allegations, so may not involve younger members of the family. We won’t know, however, as a court hearing was held in camera and reporting restrictions are in place. Unless something pops up on the internet, we may never know the name of the alleged victim.
Update : Former Palace spokesman Dickie Arbiter has told the BBC, “It’s a vast family, there are nearly 40 members. Is it somewhere near the top? Is it in the middle, or is it down at the bottom? So they would have to determine that.
“We don’t know, we won’t know, until the case comes to trial at the Old Bailey in December, and we might not even know then, which member of the Royal Family [may be involved].
“It’s taken six weeks for it to come to light, so how serious is the allegation? It’s interesting too, that it’s come out in the Sunday Times and not one of the usual tabloid scoops. So it’s going to take the due process of the law to determine was this true or was this just another fake sting?”
Update 2 : The BBC is reporting that the alleged person involved is not a senior member of the Royal Family, and has a “low public profile”.
The BBC is reporting that the person concerned is a “minor royal” with a “low public profile”.
By Janet on October 28th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Thanks, Janet. So it may not be connected with past events at all. I hope it isn’t. We’ll wait and see.
By John on October 28th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Hello all, just quick stop in to our UK sports fans to check out the NY Giants/Miami Dolphins game in Webley today, if you’re able. Not the best matchup as the Fish are horrible, but check it out.
Go Skins!
By Positive on October 28th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I’m glad no senior member of the Royal Family was involved in the blackmail scheme, but I’m not surprised. I’ve noticed that the current senior members of the RF have so far been smart enough not to involve themselves with drugs and indiscreet sex.
Several family members may be a little fond of alcohol, but it seems they’ve all been smart enough to stay away from the “cocaine and video camcorders” combo, which is a combination that can be very lethal to a person’s career or their personal reputation.
On another note: John, I’m surprised you don’t have an article about Prince William telling Kate Middleton that she will be his bride in 2009.
By mapleleaf on October 28th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Mapleleaf, we’ve covered all that before many times. We’ve said that a wedding is unlikely before 2009, because of William’s services commitments. This is just old material repackaged. We’ve all done it, but there’s a limit to how far it will stretch.
By John on October 28th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
I don’t get it !! if the royal in ? wasn’t a senior why the gag order? and if this took place in August why is the story being leaked now? Poor HM first worry over PP’s health and now this. When will they all get a grip and comport themselves as Royal and public figures instead of acting like selfentitled fools.
By Trudie on October 28th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I heard the video shows a sex romp between a minor Royal and an aging Brigitte Bardot. That would explain the paltry demand payment of $102,500.
By Arthur on October 28th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Arthur, you are a scream.
By John on October 28th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Thank you, John. I believe everyone should have at least one good laugh a day. It helps put everything else in perspective.
By Arthur on October 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
The gag order is probably because, even if the person allegedly involved is a minor Royal, a big expose at this time could damage the celebrations planned for the Diamond Anniversary of the Queen and Prince Philip. Even minor Royals are part of the Queen’s family circle, after all. The timing of all this is seriously irritating.
By Gigi on October 28th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
John, I admit that with regard to Prince William and Kate Middleton, it’s absolutely true: it’s all been said before.
When looked at from that angle, then nothing new is being said in those recent articles about Prince William advising that Kate Middleton wouldn’t be his bride prior to 2009.
Also I do agree with Ggi, the timing of this blackmail incident involving a minor Royal is seriously irritating. Why didn’t they either break this story when it happened, or simply wait until the Diamond Anniversary celebration is over with?
Either way would have been better for the Royal Family than what they’ve chosen to do. There’s nothing like attempting to kick a fellow (or in this case a family) when they’re down, is there?
Although the inquest itself probably isn’t actually making the RF feel ‘down’, a combination of the Inquest, Prince Phillip’s heart condition being mentioned in public, and this recently thwarted blackmail attempt are not exactly the most joyous-making experiences either. Arthur has the right idea with one good laugh a day, I think that right now the Royal Family needs a good laugh.
By mapleleaf on October 28th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Precisely, Mapleleaf! Whatever ails the British press? Why are they so determinedly anti-Royal? I find this whole approach distinctly distasteful, along with being ill-timed. I do not mean you, dear John, as you were merely commenting on news already published in other papers. I thought of writing a scolding (and even snarly) letter to the editor of several of these media outlets, but as I am already past my weekly limit for scolding letters to the editor, I am reluctantly refraining. Instead, I have decided to attempt to meditate away my hostility for the anti-Royal segments of the British press. Personally I doubt that it can be done, bu nothing venture, nothing gain! In the meantime, these snarky writers and editors may considered themselves snarled at! Since I am harboring mean thoughts against these writers and editors, I fear I should report that I feel myself veering toward the near occasion of sin.
By Gigi on October 28th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Actually Gigi you really can’t blame the press for reporting what they consider news worthy at the wrong time. As I have said no matter who the royal is blame should be put at their door. As a member of the family they should be well aware such distasteful things as this will be made public and watch their backs. Was nothing learned from the tapes of Charles wanting to be Camilla’s tampon or Diana being lovingly called Squidgy teach them about being discreet.? Sycophancy by staff has given them a false sense of security since behind their backs they look for ways to make money off their employers positions in life. The family should really comport themselves in ways that deserves respect instead of thinking that their titles entitle them to respect.
By Trudie on October 29th, 2007 at 3:40 am
Given what has been alleged, I’m surprised a gagging order was required. Surely all the gagging has been done dusted already?
By Dufflebag on October 29th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Gigi, the reporting restrictions are a matter of legal procedure, not of Royal intervention. It’s standard in this type of case to protect the identity of a person being blackmailed. The court session being held behind closed doors is also something for the Crown Prosecution Service, not the victim.
The Sunday Times got hold of this story, probably through leaky contacts in Scotland Yard.
In terms of the Royal person involved, I have my suspicions, but won’t say in case I’m wrong. However, here’s a hint : think lifestyle.
By John on October 29th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Dufflebag, it’s apparently normal court procedure in such cases to protect the name of the victim, as it is in rape cases.
However, the Palace has moved quickly to protect the younger Royals who are known to inhabit places like Boujis where such things allegedly go on, and Prince Charles, who suffered some embarrassment during the Burrell case when tapes which were called Diana’s Crown Jewels were said to have disappeared and contained similar material.
By John on October 29th, 2007 at 9:26 am
“no matter who the royal is blame should be put at their door.” Amen to this.
The press is only doing their job when they report stuff like this. They certainly don’t pull it out of their bee-hinds just for laughs.
By On the Outside on October 29th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Positive - the result of the football match held at Wembley Stadium in drizzling rain was GIANTS 13 DOLPHINS 10.
Apparently there was quite a British turnout for the match so you might have exported it over the pond!
By Royalist on October 29th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
For laughs? No…they report it for money.
By Gigi on October 29th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I have my suspicions, but won’t say in case I’m wrong. However, here’s a hint : think lifestyle.
Is it Robin Leach, from “Lifestyles” of the Rich and Famous?
By Arthur on October 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
No this is a less-than senior Royal personage, Arthur. I meant think of one who is known to have the lifestyle described in the video.
By John on October 29th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
John, you folks in the UK know more about the lifestyles of the minor Royals than we know here in the states. Your clue doesn’t help me at all. Was the minor royal present at the memorial service for Diana last August? Does he have a “pushy” parent?
As a side note, I was very surprised to see this blackmail story reported on the local 11 o’clock news last night in Boston, Massachusetts.
By Arthur on October 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Arthur, if I told you, I’d be telling.
However, your last point is very close. Please don’t publish a name though — it could well be wrong.
The name will probably be published in Italy soon. The Mail is refusing to do so, but will once it appears elsewhere.
By John on October 29th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
John, my lips are sealed - which probably would have kept this minor Royal out of trouble if he had done the same!
By Arthur on October 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Droll, Arthur.
By John on October 29th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
John, as soon as i heard of the story i thought of the very same royal, he has a penchant for green velvet jackets.
For all that I never liked him, he struck me as a bit of a plonker, as Del-boy would say, I admire him hugely for not succumbing to the blackmail and having the guts to go to the police, it couldn’t have been easy.
Though I suppose he probably didn’t have the money helped his decision! Still I don’t want to take from the bravery that was required to go to the police.
By Eliza on October 29th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Well I may be clueless, but I am totally at sea! I cannot for the life of me figure out to whom you are referring. Of course I understand why John cannot name anyone here, especially if, Heaven forbid, the guess turns out to be erroneous. Of such little slips are lawsuits born.
By Gigi on October 29th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Eliza, he wouldn’t be pleased with the Dell Boy tag.
By John on October 29th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
I’m not saying another word until it appears (probably) in the Italian press. Then we can all quote them and not be sued.
By John on October 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
What is a Dell Boy?
By Gigi on October 29th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I think I know who it is, but I’m going to follow John’s lead and not name any names. I WOULD like to reiterate some things that were said earlier, just for the sake of clarification: The royal person involved in these goings on is NOT a senior royal. According to Scotland Yard, the person involved is a minor royal.
Neither Prince Charles, nor Prince William nor Prince Harry is a minor royal, they are all very much senior royals. According to Scotland Yard, the person involved is NOT an HRH, which goes along with the fact that again, they are NOT senior royals. Also according to Scotland Yard, the person involved is a low-profile person, meaning they are not much in the news.
By mapleleaf on October 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
There was never any indication whether or not this person was a male or a female, but it certainly isn’t anyone with prince or princess in front of their name, which means this person is more than likely Lord or Lady something or other.
Lastly, according to what Scotland Yard reports the blackmailers said, the royal person gave the Aide a drug substance that was consumed prior to the ‘oral’ incident between the two people. So I will just wait for the announcement of the name with everyone else, but as John said, just think “lifestyle”. It really depends upon whether or not you know which minor royal has a lifestyle that would fit with that type of behaviour.
By mapleleaf on October 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
well he mightn’t consider himself like Dell boy but there are similiarities not the least of which are the crombie coat and the drinks with umbrellas!
By Eliza on October 29th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Gigi, Dell boy is a charactor in an 80s/90s English sitcom called Only Fools and Horses (as in only fools and horses work for a living), he and his brother and grandfather live in a local authority housing called Nelson Mandela Flats and Dell boy is a bit of a wideboy, a petty crook who sells things that fell off lorries but he is a real family man and would do anything for Rodney, ‘you plonker’, the brother. I would say he is a bit like Arfur Daly but that will only confuse you more!
It is very very funny, you should look it up.
By Eliza on October 29th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Well the italian media has apparently spoken. The royal person has been named, but it’s all on the say-so of a couple of blackmailers, so I’ll let someone else mention it if they know. (I don’t want to be the bad guy)
But although the person named is further down the line of succession than the senior family members, they are not as far as I thought. The person I suspected isn’t the one that’s been named, so go figure!
By mapleleaf on October 29th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
John,
The Huffington Post in the U.S. has named the targeted victim. The person named is definitely not a senior royal but is married.
By Lisa on October 29th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Well here are clues to help and it is not Freddie. think sales man who works for a living. Married and loves biking. Oh and sold out Diana.
By Trudie on October 30th, 2007 at 12:06 am
According to the latest press reports in the US, this individual recently auctioned off “the family jewels!”
By Arthur on October 30th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Trudie, without giving away this person’s identity, can you tell us how he sold out Diana? I never heard that before.
By Arthur on October 30th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Sure Arthur after the panorama interview this royal would hide in a garage pretending not to see Diana when she came around and wouldn’t acknowledge her as would another living family member. Diana buying a gift for the first born child had that families chauffer deliver the gift. In this case Mummy turned on Diana and so did this royal and sibling.
By Trudie on October 30th, 2007 at 2:36 am
By mapleleaf on October 30th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Thank you, Trudie. When I hear stories like this, I wonder how William and Harry can bear to be in the same room with some of their Royal relations. Let’s hope they are having the last laugh now!
By Arthur on October 30th, 2007 at 4:18 am
Well, David Lindley’s name is being mentioned all over the internet. He was actually second on my list of possibles after Freddie, to whom I apologize for even suspecting his involvement.
Lindley is, of course, a nephew of the Queen and quite a bigwig in Royal circles. He was much admired for taking up high-quality carpentry, but lost his cachet when he sold his mother’s prize possessions, the house in Mustique while she lived, and her jewels after her death. Now, if true, he’s plumbed the depths of disgrace. The Clarence genes appear to have lived on after all these years.
By John on October 30th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Dear Heaven, I just can’t believe it.
This is terrible if indeed it is true. I am giving the Queen’s nephew the benefit of the doubt until and unless it is proven conclusively that what is being said is factual. The whole thing makes me feel quite ill.
By Gigi on October 30th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
I must say that I greatly disapproved of him selling off his Mother’s possessions and upsetting his Father as he did. Nevertheless, I am presuming that those things were left to him to do as he pleased. I had not heard that he turned on Princess Diana, but that greatly displeases me as well. His own Mother’s conduct was often scandalous and he might have learned a little graciousness and kindness by those experiences.
By Gigi on October 30th, 2007 at 11:36 pm