News Re: Harry and the Drugs Scandal

pixie · October 28, 2003, 10:43:09 PM

Bolland did a guardian interview, and it came out that Harry's visit to Featherston, which we were told was in response to him trying pot, actually came BEFORE. These articles are from yesterday . . . I'm surprised the tabloids haven't picked up on it, but it may have been lost in their coverage of all the Burrell stuff. I'm definitely curious about how this is going to play: this completely changes the whole situation and raises questions about how the family did, in fact, deal with it, if at all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0...1071826,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0...1071542,00.html

The second article is the bolland interview itself, and is also relevant to P.William.

pixie · October 28, 2003, 10:55:01 PM

The telegraph actually picked up on it, although it still appears most papers didn't.

Here's there article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...28/nburr128.xml

pixie · October 28, 2003, 10:57:58 PM

I messed up the first story link in the topic-starting post. It's now fixed. Sorry 'bout that.

pixie · October 29, 2003, 12:10:22 AM

*stares at absense of any replies but her own*

Don't you guys have a response to this? Are you surprised? Appalled that Bolland acted that way? Curious about what really went down now that what we heard was false? What do you think prompted the Featherstone visit in the first place? Have you NO reply?

C'mon, guys, give me something. I really want to talk about this story.

FtLouie34 · October 29, 2003, 12:14:44 AM

I'm so sorry but I just got on...I'll have to take my time reading these, plus I am dazed by love for my half-brother's second cousin....but anywayz, welcome bak!!!!

pixie · October 29, 2003, 12:22:34 AM

You're so good to me, Lou. And thanks for the welcome back.

stewie_griffin · October 29, 2003, 12:32:43 AM

Quote*stares at absense of any replies but her own*

Don't you guys have a response to this? Are you surprised? Appalled that Bolland acted that way? Curious about what really went down now that what we heard was false? What do you think prompted the Featherstone visit in the first place? Have you NO reply?

C'mon, guys, give me something. I really want to talk about this story.

to answer your questions: yes, yes, not really, kinda, i don't know, and yes, i have a reply. i'm more concerned as to why prince charles thought it necessary to send harry to the rehab center before the whole pot-thing. but i have no idea why he would do that, unless harry was caught doing something much worse than just smoking pot. but then that makes me wonder why he would smoke pot at all after getting caught and going to the rehab center. unless he just didn't care about what "pa" thought about his drug taking. but, yeah, i'm kinda confused about this.

pixie · October 29, 2003, 12:50:08 AM

I just found this ancient Guardian article. It includes this interesting bit:

QuoteBuckingham Palace issued a statement saying that the Queen shared Prince Charles's concerns about the prince's behaviour. It is understood she was not aware of her grandson's behaviour until late last week, when allegations were about to appear in the press.

"She supports the action which has been taken," the palace added.

So, do you think they lied to the Queen? Did they tell her and have her issue something backing the lie up. This is BIG. The papers should definitely pick up on this, it has the makings of an enormous scandal: either the Queen lying to the country or the Prince of Wales lying to the Queen. I also found another article, this with Tony Blair praising Charles's handling of the situation. I honestly think that this is something that a big stink should be made about. Palace credibility is of the utmost importance. I'm looking through old articles (the Guardian has a nice archive of royal articles, do any other sites you know of have one?) and doing a bit of research as to whether SJP released a statement saying that they took Harry to the clinic in response or if they only said "It's a private family matter that has already been dealt with" or something like that.

I think the Guardian should do an article retracting their praise for how Prince Charles handled the situation or something like that. Just anything for all the papers to sit up and take notice.

pixie · October 29, 2003, 01:02:12 AM

So, as my research is looking now, the palace didn't techinically lie. Look:

QuoteAccording to the report, Charles told aides: 'There is no point in hiding the truth. These are the facts - let people make their own judgment.' St James's Palace said: 'This is a serious matter which was resolved within the family and is now closed.'

There's a whole article about the scandal from the Guardian available here (it's where I took the quote from) if you want to read the details and refresh your memory.

I think the palace leaked some false things, but danced around releasing a lie. This pretty much shows that, while the palace can always be trusted in regards to official statements, we need to be very careful about trusting leaks and "palace sources."

FtLouie34 · October 29, 2003, 01:08:31 AM

That makes absolutely no sense. If Charles had found out and sent him to a rehab center, wouldn't things with Harry have calmed down just a tad? I mean, they came out with the story several months later, and then he went bak for a second round? This was what, two years ago? This seems just a little bit dodgy...I could possibly care less about the Bolland thing, what bothers me is the fact that this is just coming out about him visiting Featherstone. We knew he did it once, but twice? Why wouldn't they have let that out the first time? Unless....the media said that they kept it under wraps and didn't talk about it for like a year. So if they found out that he was smoking pot and drinking a lot again, they decided, screw it, and ran the story. Now that makes it sound more....sensible.

pixie · October 29, 2003, 01:17:28 AM

Here's the time line I'm getting:

June/July 2001: Prince Harry visits Featherstone for 1 day. There was probably something that sparked that visit, which would have happened before or during this time.

Late July/August/Early Septmber 2001: Harry engaged in the heavy drinking/drug taking at the Rattlebone in that The News of the World eventually finds out about.

September-December 2001: The News of the World stages its investigation and finds out about the late summer shenanigans. It starts talking with Bolland, who, after their evidence is too compelling to ignore, has it leaked that P.Charles took Harry to Featherstone for a day. The leak either hints or flat-out says that it was in response to Harry's drinking/drug taking.

January 2002: The News of the World breaks the story. St James Palace's only statement is: "This is a serious matter which was resolved within the family and is now closed." The Queen and Tony Blair both issue statements praising Charles' handling of the situation.

FtLouie34 · October 29, 2003, 01:27:48 AM

That's basically what I got. But why are they just now saying anything about it?????

pixie · October 29, 2003, 01:46:34 AM

The previous timeline (before the Bolland articles linked at the beginning of this thread) had the Featherstone visit AFTER the drinking and drugs. This raises all sorts of questions about the palace deliberately misleading the public (while no official statements actually lied) and, possibly, the Queen and Prime Minister. It also raises the question of what prompted the Featherstone visit in the first place.

We were all fed this story about how the family compassionately and appropriately delt with Harry's "experimenting." Now, we know that the story's not true.

eccentriceventer3 · October 29, 2003, 02:20:05 AM

hey..... as you can all see, it ignored me twice LoL! but thought id introduce myself..... i guess we'll use whatever you can get from my sn or something to do with horses/polo/eventing/dressage type things lol. oh yes, and i tend to say lol a lot :) i am not really laughing out loud (lol) :angelic: and when i do, i say something like *laughs out loud.* ive been coming here for a while and thinking like, neat, i have an opinion on that, until finally i was like, okay, the people arent going to attack me, ill just sign up lol. three times later...... im in!
okay, here we go with my humble opinion on the subject:
im surpirsed its not getting more press or attention, first off.

Quotepossibly, the Queen and Prime Minister

i doubt the PM knew..... the queen, i have no idea lol.

QuoteJune/July 2001: Prince Harry visits Featherstone for 1 day. There was probably something that sparked that visit, which would have happened before or during this time.

i read this story and it made NO sense whatsoever. most of the people i spoke to seem to think that he was doing drugs, got caught, got punsihed, ignored being punsihed and then...... got as confused as i was lol!
pixie.... if you search at femail.co.uk, there are also a lot of things about the original story there. if i find anything intersting there, i shall let you know lol

pixie · October 29, 2003, 02:52:51 AM

Hey eccentric, welcome to the forum. I'm glad you decided to post and I hope you like it here.

Quotei read this story and it made NO sense whatsoever. most of the people i spoke to seem to think that he was doing drugs, got caught, got punsihed, ignored being punsihed and then...... got as confused as i was lol!

I imagine something must have happened for Charles to decide it would be a good idea to take Harry to Featherstone for a day. I mean, does anyone ever wake up and say "hey, let's go to a rehab clinic today!"?

kitkat · October 29, 2003, 02:58:18 AM

Hey eccentriceventer3, welcome to the forum :D ...i'm kinda new myself.

eccentriceventer3 · October 29, 2003, 03:05:41 AM

thanks :) eccentric LOL that'll do.

QuoteI mean, does anyone ever wake up and say "hey, let's go to a rehab clinic today!"?

well see, at first it could sound like they just got a hold of it later, but then...... nothing would have been changed and why the visit? so that makes no sense. again, im surpised this donest get more press. a few news people were ticked off when eton decided to do nothing except "limit weekend passes" "cousnel, warn, and test" when its (apprently) been known to be anti-drugs even off school grounds. and thats another thing from this story..... doesnt their school year go until the end of june and then start at the beginning of september? also making a lie out of "careful not to conduct this kind of behavior at school."also, the wording in the interview with "the drug taking exposed in the NoW" makes it sound like more than one. also the part about him being photgraphed in a "drugged" state in august.

eccentriceventer3 · October 29, 2003, 03:06:30 AM

thanks kitkat :)

eccentriceventer3 · October 29, 2003, 12:22:13 PM

for those of you who never saw it, amuse yourselves with one of orignial NoW story. you can find some of the quotes from the guardian article in their context and what i was refering to when i said

Quotea few news people were ticked off when eton decided to do nothing except "limit weekend passes" "cousnel, warn, and test" when its (apprently) been known to be anti-drugs even off school grounds. and thats another thing from this story..... doesnt their school year go until the end of june and then start at the beginning of september? also making a lie out of "careful not to conduct this kind of behavior at school

.

orignial story

if that doesnt work:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n059/a08.html?1089

mediastar · October 29, 2003, 01:04:05 PM

eccentriceventer3

Welcome to the forum. You are the first person to post here without validating your membership first! There should be an e-mail awaiting you with a link to click to validate your membership.

sunshine69 · October 29, 2003, 02:34:05 PM

Welcome to the forum!

e-ccentriceventer · October 29, 2003, 04:15:15 PM

guess who?

thanks everyone! heres my testimoney: i registered as eccentriceventer on an aol sn. no email. register as eccentriceventer2 on an aol sn. no email. had a friend register for me under a yahoo email, went to validate it, and was told she already had. it unvalidated, took away my rights lol. i created a yahoo email, and signed up, and validated so AHHHHHHHHHHHH! i think i am now legal and ready! :) its the same me... eccentric, e, whatever you want to call me.

but to go back on topic..... does anyone understand this story other than what pixie and i made off it? lol...... one of my many pet peeves!

QuoteThat's basically what I got. But why are they just now saying anything about it?????

because they enjoy torturing us. i seriosuly would have thought that all the papers would have jumped on it if there was a chance they could further scandalize the monarchy and discredit the palace, which it woudl. oh well, maybe its just me......

thanks again for your grettings everyone!

e-ccentriceventer · October 29, 2003, 06:30:56 PM

Quotebut then that makes me wonder why he would smoke pot at all after getting caught and going to the rehab center. unless he just didn't care about what "pa" thought about his drug taking.

im guessing thats about right.

Quote*stares at absense of any replies but her own*

Don't you guys have a response to this? Are you surprised? Appalled that Bolland acted that way? Curious about what really went down now that what we heard was false? What do you think prompted the Featherstone visit in the first place? Have you NO reply?

C'mon, guys, give me something. I really want to talk about this story.

im really surprised...... i thought everyone would have at least some opinion. see what happens when you dont? overdosages of MY opinion! lol! yes, i have a response (again, and on my fourth screename :)) yes, im surprised. i thought his lips would be sealed. but you know, he seems to be coming clean on at least a couple things and it looks like a lot of fault for the way the story came out lies with the NoW, probably to avoid PPC and palace rejection, and keeping the story from running. as for what really happened, me and lot of other people seemed to think that the "deal" made, rather than anything more serious being covered up, was that they give it the "spin" and they can run the story. but of course, thats when we thought the rehab visit was a response to the entire thing. like i said earlier in this post, it looks like the rehab visit was supposed to stop something, but didnt.

Quote
Mr Bolland told The Telegraph that the Palace "had always made it clear to anyone who asked" that Prince Harry had visited the centre before the NoW investigation.

that just makes it sound like they found out after.

QuoteHowever, Mr Bolland now admits that Prince Harry visited the centre, Featherstone Lodge in south London, several months before the alcohol and drug abuse exposed by the tabloid.

that, however, makes it sound plural

QuoteDespite official Palace denials of any deal, Mr Bolland was widely believed to have horse-traded with Rebekah Wade, the paper's then-editor and a personal friend - agreeing to co-operate with the paper which, in turn, dropped some of the more serious allegations about the Prince.

But Mr Bolland told The Telegraph yesterday that the NoW's attempts to play up Prince Charles's positive role was "so over-the-top it left the Palace, and even the Prince of Wales, feeling queasy".

makes it sound like there was nothing "more serious"

mediastar · October 29, 2003, 07:40:16 PM

Just picked up on this story pixie. Congratulations on spotting it.

It is surprising that it has not been given more coverage. Everthing should be OK as long as they don't let Harry wander all the round the world by himself for two years!

And guess who Mark Bolland will be writing for....

willwindsor62182 · November 05, 2003, 09:19:35 PM

interesting article