Society
Cristina Odone prefers the Windsors to have gay sex
Published 18 November 2002
It's not gay sex that should worry the royals, but bog-standard heterosexual promiscuity
A valet gave Prince Charles a blow job. Or at least something along those lines apparently happened, if we are to believe George Smith, the former royal valet who told Princess Diana every gory detail of the seedy, scandalous excesses of Palace life. Smith claimed that a member of the royal family - it might not have been Charles, but rather Randy Andy or Philandering Phil or Three-in-a-Bed Ed - was caught in flagrante with some flunkey.
"Who cares?" I can hear the republican New Statesman readers cry. Decadent royals have been inextricably woven into the nation's narrative since Guinevere cuckolded King Arthur, Henry VIII collected eight wives and James I had his catamites. Why should the Windsors be clean-living when the Plantagenets, the Tudors and the Stuarts enjoyed the perks and perky bottoms that their lineage guaranteed them?
The problem is that the Tudors et al could swan about without compunction, secure in the knowledge that their subjects would never question their divine right to reign; kings, queens and princelings could seduce under-age vassals or have it off with married ladies-in-waiting, comforted by the fact that, no matter what they got up to, their claim to the throne remained undisputed.
The same cannot be said of the Windsors, who face, each day, a slew of republican foes baying for their blood - or at least their overthrow. They must watch their step, avoid controversy and keep their noses clean: they cannot afford to turn off a single loyal subject (an ever-shrinking resource), and must not give ammunition to those tricoteuses who sit knitting by the guillotine, waiting for the big heads to roll.
The Windsors do not need to avoid gay or anal sex, or unspeakable activities with a corgi. It is ordinary heterosexual promiscuity that gives republicans their best ammunition. A monarch's right to reign depends on heredity, on the blood line. If there are royal bastards out there, who is to say that they won't fight for the succession? If the man who would be king is not quite who we think he is, what claim does he have to the throne? A modern monarchy cannot afford such doubts. It needs to keep heterosexual sex outside marriage to a minimum. A small price to pay, surely, for a crown.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
