With five days until King Charles finally gets his crown, a slew of friends and former employees of the royal family are suddenly ankling for their moment in the sun and revealing never-before-told secrets from inside Buckingham Palace.
Although he actually became King of the United Kingdom following the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, on September 8th, 2022, Charles’ coronation will officially take place on Saturday, May 6 at Westminster Abbey.
In the lead up to the big shindig, a royal insider has come forward to try and cast royal shade on the beloved memory of Charles’ first wife, Princess Diana.
Allen Peters, a former royal protection officer, is spilling tea about intimate details of Diana and Charles ill-fated marriage by alleging that the princess was the first one to commit infidelity.
Related:
Diana predicted Charles would struggle as king and his latest outburst over leaky pen proves her right
“I would think that the top job, as I call it, would bring enormous limitations to him and I don’t know whether he could adapt to that.”
“I can categorically say that the first person who strayed in the marriage was the Princess of Wales,” Peters says in the new documentary King Charles: The Boy Who Walked Alone, according to the New York Post. “[Charles] didn’t, until after he knew she had strayed.”
Despite allegedly knowing this information for decades, Peters says he’s only mentioning these tidbits now because he got fed up about hearing reports that Charles was initially the unfaithful one.
“I’m speaking now about all this because I’ve said nothing for 40 years, and I’ve just listened to lies, silly stories, and it’s quite frustrating,” he insists, per the outlet. “There are only a few of us that can say what really happened.”
Charles and Diana married in 1981 and separated in 1992. They were officially divorced in 1996. At some point during their bad marriage, Charles rekindled his premarital affair with Camila Parker Bowles, while Diana allegedly began a romance with her bodyguard Barry Mannakee.
So how does Peters know Diana was the first adulterer in the relationship? Because he says she behaved “strangely” around Mannakee. Um, OK.
“It was clear that something had gone on,” he says. “As far as I could ascertain, they were having an affair.”
In addition to his musings on Lady Di’s sexual proclivities, Peters also alleges she had a violent episode after he removed Mannakee from her security detail.
“[She was] throwing her shoes at the back of my head,” Peters claims. “She was distraught, and life was quite difficult for everybody.”
Neither Diana nor Mannakee can refute these claims as both have since died. While Diana tragically passed away in 1997 in that horrific car crash in Paris, Mannakee passed away ten years earlier at the age of 39 following a motorbike accident.
Related:
So apparently Charles once told Diana he “might be gay” in a fight over their sad, nonexistent sex life
Pull up a chair and grab a scone because it’s time for some scalding hot royal tea.
When not knocking Diana down, the documentary also appears to take a more sympathizing angle with Charles, as many of his former associates (including two former girlfriends) take turns at chipping away at his reputation for being cold and distant.
“We have never seen King Charles in such an intimate, personal, emotional way,” Susan Zirinsky, president of See It Now Studios, said in a statement. “This documentary will leave viewers with an all-new understanding of what influenced his life and how he got to be the person he is today. You will never look at him the same way again.”
Someone who is coming to Diana’s defense is her longtime butler Paul Burrell. In addition to releasing one of her letters to the public where she expressed her love for the monarchy, Burrell is convinced Diana would have taken the high road and attended Charles’ coronation.
“I always think to myself, ‘What would she do in this situation?’ And she would have been at the coronation looking glorious, in her sixties, outshining everyone the way she did,” he told OK! Magazine, per the Mirror.
“I don’t think she would hold any animosity at all towards her ex-husband or towards her ex-husband’s wife [Camila]. I think she would have gone on in life and achieved her own ambitions, still being royal and regal.”
King Charles: The Boy Who Walked Alone premieres May 2 on Paramount+.
Related:
Prince Harry makes ‘dangerous’ accusations about stepmom Camilla and the internet has royal thoughts
Prince Harry’s crusade to expose the dubious machinations inside the British royal family shows no sign of stopping.
stanhope
Utter bullshyt..tampon boy never stopped balling horseface….beyond that, charles is head of the Church…it will be a wonder he doesn’t catch fire when they put the holy oil on him…these roaches are simply trying to curry favor with the imbecile king.
dwick
These people disgust me. I can’t blame Harry for flying out as soon as this thing is over.
barryaksarben
Total Bullsh*t. This is why Liz believe every single thing Meghan Markle ever said about. “palace sources” and never a single thing they say against her. Charles admitted he never loved her on their honeymoon so HE had NO intention of being a full husband to her . I do hope Diana got as much fun as she could. That family is toxic and always has. Look at. how miserable Margaret was made by her “loving sister” and all the others from Diana to Fergie and more going back further in history. Mistresses, wives husbands if they weren’t of the blood they weren’t treated well
Fahd
Charles isn’t King because he’s free of sin…it’s a hereditary thing. Who cares who cheated first in any divorce. Despite some people suggesting otherwise, Charles and Diana had two children, obviously for better and for worse. There’s going to be documentaries about Charles in the days before his coronation, and people are going to be “ankling” for their moment, as this article states. “ankling” lol.
Why isn’t the media more focused on Meghan’s efforts to bury her father before he’s dead? She has treated that man, who did so much for her, so cruelly, and the media acts like she’s normal. Outrageous! At least she’s had the sense to stay away and not besmirch the coronation. God save the King!
theaterbloke
Please. The man tried to cash in on his role as father of the bride. That’s one reason Charles ended up giving Meghan away.
Jim
Did you miss the latest money grab Meghan’s dad pulled.
A sad man
Winsocki
Fahd….what planet and dimension do you inhabit. Meghan’s family are a bunch of leeches making a buck and so called ‘fame’ on a weak relationship. Daddy Markle is a pig. You are a prig. As for the King…”OFF WITH HIS HEAD”.
Fahd
I’ve heard that there’s the Sussex Squad that trolls the internet and swarms to Meghan and Harry’s defense whenever any criticism arises, but please stop with this defending the indefensible.
Meghan’s father spent $750K on Meghan’s Northwestern years, not to mention the money and effort he put in when Meghan’s mother was absent from Meghan’s life for some ten years while Meghan was growing up. I doubt he’s made a dime off his association with her.
Meghan is never going to achieve the celebrity or success she craves unless she takes steps (I recommend sooner than later) to reconcile with her father. She has treated him very cruelly, and his health isn’t good. She should do the right thing and meet with him and let him meet his grandchildren (and son-in-law). Even though she’d probably only be doing it because it would clean up her negatives, I still hope she does it.
Also, I don’t have a problem with the people of the UK wanting to have a constitutional monarchy. they can also have a referendum to see how people feel about it – Greece did in the 1970s, and they got rid of their king. In any case, it’s a matter for the citizens of the UK.
Kangol2
GTFOH! Meghan Markle’s father apologized for how he trashed her to make money! It’s disgusting. Same with that half sister of hers! They need to atone for a long time for how they’ve tried to pimp their relationships to her.
As for Charles, down with the monarchy, up with the Republic!
Kangol2
Fahd, you are incorrect. $750,000 for 4 years at Northwestern is off by quite a bit. It doesn’t even cost that much NOW, in 2023, and Northwestern is one of the major private research universities in the US and the world.
Meghan Markle attended Northwestern from 1999-2003.
At the time Meghan would have attended Northwestern it would have cost roughly $23,000-27,000. Average that to $25,000 times 4 is $100,000. (GOOGLE the info if you do not believe me.)
Northwestern cost $36,000 per year in 2008, eight years later.
I am not sure where you got that outrageous figure, but it is completely wrong.
Now, try again.
Yooper
It’s all about financial opportunity.
Jim
The Palace is full of sleazy people, the Mountbattens to their staff.
Narcissistic leaches.
still_onthemark
To paraphrase Churchill (that canceled, racist mass murderer!) – constitutional monarchy is the worst form of government ever invented, with the exception of every other form of government that’s ever been invented.
Those uppity 13 colonies in North America somehow managed to come up with a far more f***ed-up system that couldn’t survive 80 years before it collapsed in civil war. Our patches since then aren’t lasting very well either.
Maybe a system of government based on “some watery tart distributing swords” (Monty Python) is not so bad after all.
inbama
You’re not “on the mark” here.
England had a bloody civil war complete with monarchs being beheaded.
Roger Williams, a great man, Puritan dissident and founder of Rhode Island colony, brought freedom of religion to these shores to stop Catholics and Protestants from killing each other – one hundred years before Jefferson penned the First Amendment.
Kangol2
Uh, you seem to forget that Britain has experienced a number of civil wars and internecine battles over its history. Charles III’s predecessor Charles I even had his head chopped off, after being led out of Banqueting House. Britain’s patches are pretty shaky as well, and it’s on the verge of devolving even more if Sunak and the Tories keep screwing up.
graphicjack
From what I understand based on multiple sources/docs/media, etc… Charles was always in love with Camilla but did refrain from sleeping with her after he got married to Diana. Diana was jealous of Charles’ continued friendship with Camilla, feeling it was emotional cheating, which perhaps it was. But yes, I have heard repeatedly that Diana actually fooled around first.
But here’s the thing… the marriage was a disaster from the start. Charles should have been able to marry whom he wanted from the beginning. Who care if his bride was a virgin or not… it was the 1980s, not the 1780s. And he and Diana were complete opposites, she was young, naive at first, had emotional issues and used the media to her advantage… he was older, jealous of her popularity and distant. I think after all this time, we can say it was a wash. Who cares who cheated first… all three parties suffered needlessly because older members of the RF were misguided to say the least about who would be a ‘suitable’ bride for Charles, and all three parties contributed to the breakdown of the marriage.
It’s sad that Diana was hounded to death by the media (and the public who were obsessed with her) but it’s time to move on. Charles is finally married to the right woman for him and he’s happy. In the end, it’s none of our damned business. Why should anyone have a say as to whom he ‘should’ be married to? Would you accept it if the public was dictating whom you should love? These two are in their 70s… give them some peace at long last.
BrokebackBob
The perfect definition of slut/adulterer are the queen and king.
gothvixen
We’ve known that for decades. Diana began an affair with Mannakee in 85, so when Charles was told in 86 he went back to Camilla, whilst Diana moved on to James Hewitt. She had 10 acknowledged lovers between 1985 and her death. Trying to portray her as some saintly figure is comical. She knew that Charles was in love with Camilla, but decided to go ahead with the wedding anyway, as she wanted to be the fairytale princess. He was wrong to allow himself to be pushed into the marriage by his father, but all he’s guilty of is that weakness.
SUPREME
Diana would have made such a beautiful queen.
mateo
Good grief. Who would have blamed her for cheating, when he couldn’t even have the balls to say he loved her? (To refresh your memory, when interviewed upon their engagement he was asked if they were “in love” and he answered “Yes….whatever love is”. What a cold-fish reply!
Hans
And now we have the first queen-consort slut since Katherine Howard. I find the concept of referring to Mrs. Parker-Bowles as “Your Majesty” ludicrous.
Joshooeerr
The concept of referring to anyone as “your majesty” is ludicrous.
cc423
The fact that the royal family is still a thing is bizarre.
Rugby8
Why are you adding to this crap?
If people didn’t listen, and Idiot online, and TV, journalists didn’t promote it, it wouldn’t be “a thing”
Trash -Truly
As was said to Joseph McCarthy — Have you no shame?
PoetDaddy
The biggest royal slut since Catherine Howard is Queen-to-be Camilla, the gold-digging multiple adulterer. She’s a disgrace to the monarchy, and so is King Prat. They deserve each other. Britain deserves more?
FreddieW
I hope they enjoy their new Queen Courtesan.
radiooutmike
Diana was a 20 year old virgin when she was married. How many of us when we were 20 made absolutely awful decisions that affected our lives?
Charles could have stopped this. He could have married Camilla and let that be that. He was in love with her. But for appearances and his mother, he married Diana, who he told during their honeymoon that he did not love her.
And even if you truly believe she was just a slut and by no means a saint; she did more good in this world than he ever did.