An interesting tale from the Mail archives about yet more sordid shenanigans taking place at Buck Pal:
” The crisis at the heart of the Royal Family intensified last night as one of Prince Charles’s closest aides was forced to break his silence and deny raping another male servant.
In yet another astonishing twist to the royal ‘rape-tape’ scandal, the aide found it necessary to issue a point-by-point rebuttal of claims made by ex-valet George Smith.
The senior Palace employee – who chose to remain anonymous – described Mr Smith as an ‘unreliable alcoholic’ whose story differed ‘ substantially and significantly’ from what he told police last year.
As well as his rape accusation, Falklands veteran Mr Smith claims he told Princess Diana that he had witnessed an incident between a member of the Royal Family and a servant, the disclosure of which could damage the Monarchy irreparably.
That was the reason, he says, for the Queen’s intervention which brought Paul Burrell’s Old Bailey trial to an abrupt end.
Mr Smith’s claims – tape-recorded by Diana -were at the centre of the theft case brought against her former butler and likely to be publicly revealed when Burrell gave evidence.
The continuing furore provoked panic at the Palace yesterday as demands grew for an independent review of the entire fiasco.
Senior courtiers have urged Prince Charles to call in a senior judge or Whitehall mandarin to investigate why the Palace failed to call in police when Mr Smith’s rape allegations were first raised in 1996.
Downing Street is becoming increasingly concerned at the tide of scandal threatening to engulf the Monarchy.
One senior figure indicated the Prime Minister and his advisers were watching in horror as even more lurid claims emerged.
‘It’s not good, it’s not good,’ he said. ‘But we are leaving that to the Royals. We will leave that to them.’
The statement from Prince Charles’s aide was released hours after Mr Smith gave an interview to the Mail on Sunday claiming that he was raped at the man’s home in 1989 and fought off another sexual assault six years later during a royal tour of Egypt.
In a detailed account, the aide’s solicitors Kingsley Napley said that what Mr Smith claimed yesterday was ‘in stark contrast’ to what he told police when Scotland Yard investigated the alleged rape last year. There were ‘demonstrable discrepancies’.
He told police the second attack happened within a month of the first incident in 1989 – but told the Mail on Sunday it was in 1995.
Yesterday he said he was asleep on a settee ‘insensible from drink’ when the first assault occurred, but he told police that he had been fully awake throughout and tried to fight off his attacker.
The solicitors, whose bill is being paid by Prince Charles, said the allegations made by Mr Smith ‘differ substantially and significantly in many regards from those made to the police last year’.
The statement added: ‘This must cast doubt on Mr Smith’s reliability and the accuracy of any allegations he might be persuaded to make.
‘In discussions with us at the time and in our client’s interview, police described Mr
Smith as being in a very poor mental and physical state and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder due to his service in the Falklands War. He was further described as being an alcoholic.
‘Our client has consistently denied that these offences ever took place and whilst he has no desire to enter into the current media frenzy cannot allow wholly untrue allegations against him to be reported and unchallenged.’
Senior police sources say the rape allegation made by Mr Smith carried ‘a lot of sub-stance’ and certainly merited a full investigation.
But ultimately, the delay in informing Scotland Yard made it very difficult for officers to press charges.
Yard chiefs are said to have been ‘petrified’ of upsetting Prince Charles, whose courtiers were ‘extremely uneasy’ about the investigation and the presence of detectives at St James’s Palace.
A spokesman for the Prince of Wales last night said: ‘There has been a full police investigation and they have found no evidence of any kind. If Mr Smith has some new evidence relating to the case, he should provide it immediately.’
Scotland Yard would not comment on the discrepancy between the claims of Mr Smith and his alleged attacker. ‘This is a dispute between two people and we have not discussed the details of this case at any point, so we would have no comment to make.’
Last night a close family friend of Mr Smith said: ‘Everyone knows that George had a serious nervous breakdown and has struggled with a drinking problem.
‘But he told all of us – his family and his friends – about the attack at the time and his story has never changed.
‘When he spoke to the police last year he was in a bad way, probably as low as he could get. Since then he has turned his life around. His drinking and his mental problems are firmly in the past.
‘As far as we are all concerned he would never make an accusation of this kind unless it were true.’
This latest development came after a weekend of yet more tawdry revelations in the wake of the Burrell trial.
As the former butler arrived in New York to embark on a series of lucrative TV interviews, shamed TV presenter Michael Barrymore claimed Burrell tried to seduce him three days after Diana’s death.
A company director accused the former butler of making homosexual advances at a charity dinner.
And a former Scotland Yard chief responsible for protecting the Queen voiced his fears that ‘promiscuous’ gay servants could have jeopardised royal security.
David Davies, a former chief superintendent, says royal staff ’caused considerable concern and embarrassment’ by bringing male prostitutes into the palace.”
That’s filthy Britain for you.
Even the Royals are in on it.