The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
Brief History of Triple-Decker Buses
Jean Gauntt, the Immortal Baby, 1939
Rachael Ray cooks her family and her dog
The worms inside your face
Fake Photos of Very Large Animals
The Society for Indecency to Naked Animals, 1959
Prankster causes volcano to erupt, 1974
Script of Casablanca rejected, 1982
Swiss peasants harvest spaghetti from trees, 1957
Tube of liquor hidden in prohibition-era boot, 1920s
Crown Jewels on Display
image In this picture that's caused quite a sensation in England, Lt. Col. Simon West reveals exactly what's beneath his kilt during a group photograph with the Queen. But is the picture real? Apparently so. According to articles in a variety of British papers, the accidental exposure was witnessed by hundreds of people. It happened on Nov. 9 as the Queen posed with the 1st Battalion of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. This assumes, of course, that the exposure was accidental. Lt. Col West insists that it was. All the papers seem to be running a censored version of the picture, but Snopes has posted what looks like the original version (click the image on the right for the uncensored, nsfw version). They say it's status is undetermined, but it looks legitimate to me. The version that ran in the papers seems too tame to have caused such a fuss.
Categories: Photos/Videos, Sex/Romance
Posted by The Curator on Mon Nov 29, 2004
Comments (24)
That's no accident, he's holding the kilt up.
Posted by Sharruma  on  Mon Nov 29, 2004  at  05:29 AM
Yeah, I noticed he's holding it straight. But it still could be doctored. I read an article about it the other day. (Reuters, I think.) Anyone Kilt-wearers out there who would like to divulge what's really under there & help solve this??
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Mon Nov 29, 2004  at  01:02 PM
Not convinced by the Snopes' original - there appears to be a lot of light where you'd expect it to be quite dark.

Also, photographers are usually a bit more touchy when composing a picture - they usually irritate subjects with requests for minor adjustments so it's a bit odd that this crass mistake would be let pass. big surprise
Posted by Lord Lucan  in  somewhere strange  on  Mon Nov 29, 2004  at  01:21 PM
Supposedly, the Queen's Highland regiments have a proud tradition of wearing nothing under their kilts. They're not supposed to display themselves, though.

Which brings us to the old joke where the young man joins the Royal Army, and after basic training he comes home on leave in his Highland uniform. The first evening in the family parlor, his mother takes him aside and says, "Son, if you're going to be a soldier, you're going to have to learn to sit like a lady."

I agree with Lawrence, though, that it seems suspiciously light under that kilt, unless there's some unidentified (and highly unusual) bright light from directly in front of and slightly below the people in the photo.
Posted by Big Gary C  in  Dallas, Texas  on  Mon Nov 29, 2004  at  03:38 PM
The head of the penis quite obviously reaches the front edge of the chair, where the bend of his knee is. The penis would have to be extraordinarily long if it were real. Also, the base of the penis sprouts from his perineal area. Much too low. The schlong is doctored.
Posted by bobo  on  Mon Nov 29, 2004  at  05:59 PM
Maybe he's Dick Cheney's long lost son:-)

KV
Posted by Karen  in  Pawtucket RI  on  Mon Nov 29, 2004  at  10:01 PM
Must be a hoax. You say it's England, but people don't dress like this in England, only in Scotland.
Posted by David Orme  in  Winchester, England  on  Tue Dec 07, 2004  at  10:38 AM
One thing real fast. The country of Great Britian is composed of four main parts in Europe. England, Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland (think of them as states) so, England owns Scotland. This is the Highland Regiment. The Highland is Scotland. It's not possible that this photo is real for other reasons, but this is indeed Great Britian's Highland Regiment under the symbolic rule of the Queen.
Posted by Fay-Fay  on  Tue Dec 07, 2004  at  01:14 PM
Scotland is owned by England?? Don't let the Scots hear you say that.
David Orme (Englishman)
Posted by David Orme  in  Winchester Hants  on  Tue Dec 07, 2004  at  05:47 PM
Great Britain is in Europe? Don't let the English hear you say that!

Just to maintain my reputation for being picky, I'll also point out that Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain, although it is part of the United Kingdom (much to the Provisional IRA's chagrin). Great Britain is the big island covered by England, Wales, and Scotland. Ireland is that other big rock over to the west of Great Britain.
Posted by Big Gary C  in  Dallas, Texas  on  Tue Dec 07, 2004  at  09:35 PM
This is obviously fake. In much simpler terms, the distance between the penis and the chair is too high. Shouldn't it rest on the chair? Also, his bent knees aren't in proportion with the top of the calf area. The knees are too skinny and pale in comparison with the rest of his legs. Fake.
Posted by Christina  on  Wed Dec 08, 2004  at  04:39 PM
Whoa. Snopes proven wrong? and I can't even show it off....
Posted by Marla  on  Fri Dec 10, 2004  at  02:48 PM
Fine, fine, fine... I'll give you that it's technically together the entire thing is the United Kingdom and that Great Britain is the island itself, but Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of both England and Scotland so they can own each other as much as I care. Also, why would the English dislike being called European? They may not like the idea of the Euro, but the nation is considered part of the continent of Europe. (unless someone's been lying to me all of this time...)
Posted by Fay-Fay  on  Fri Dec 10, 2004  at  05:30 PM
This picture is OBVIOUSLY a fake - No real person would wear such a hideous hat!
Posted by Field Marshall Charles Upandattem (retired)  on  Mon Jan 31, 2005  at  03:54 AM
Nope, fake. Two giant clues: The GIF pallette of the willie in the photo is 16 color and too light for the pallatte shading of the rest of the pictures. Also, the Royal Guard, as well as male members of the Royal Family are "gaffed" at ceremonies. This means small grey underwear is worn for just such purposes. None of these men have naked genitals this close to the queen. No doubt, his underwear showed, and some pundit put a willie on him.
Posted by Jeremy Lynden  in  United States  on  Mon Aug 22, 2005  at  01:53 AM
I belong to a highland regiment in Canada. The requirement is no underwear when wearing a kilt.
but nobody checks. if somebody challenges and you are you owe the whole regiment a beer
Posted by canadian highlander  in  canada  on  Tue Oct 11, 2005  at  04:27 PM
cool smile waz up??
Posted by Michelle  in  USA  on  Sun Dec 04, 2005  at  08:18 PM
omg do you guyz see what i see in that pic??!!
Posted by Michelle  on  Sun Dec 04, 2005  at  08:20 PM
An insult to Scotland. I'm half Scottish, though I was born here in Sydney.
Posted by Meerkat  in  Austrailia  on  Fri Jul 14, 2006  at  12:06 PM
That's fascinating, Jeremy -- I had heard more than once about the "gaffing" for formal and/or diplomatic occassions with the elite guards of the kilted regiments but I thought it was an urban-legend type of thing. I was told a small black bikini brief, not a grey one, was actually issued for these cases but you may know first hand... so to speak. For the record, I don't think he's intentionally holding his kilt taught to expose what's under it. If you look closley, you can see that his hands are curled and resting on his knees above the hem the same as all the other men. I agree with you that it's been doctored but I think it was messed with twice. In the original shot, which first appeared, there's just this blurred void where something (whatever it is)ought to be. My bet is that his surperiors didn't want the "age old secter" reduced to the pouch of a soldier's underpants revealed in print so they just blurred it out it and then someone got a hold of that and tinkered. It's obviously faked just because of the odd proportions... Not that he might not be sporting a 9-iron in his jock, good for him - but I mean, if he were really so enormously endowed as that and regimental too, at the very least, the group of people behind the camera(handlers and the Queen's entourage alone would make up almost a dozen)would have noticed it and discretely fixed the "problem" before the photo was ever taken, whereas one kilted soldier's panties showing between his legs could easily go unnoticed until the print. Anyway, that's my two... well, fifty cents.
Posted by Padraic  in  New York, NY  on  Fri May 18, 2007  at  03:36 PM
OK, so I know that post is a year and a half old, but if Canadian highlander checked to be notified of responses, Kilts are so hit smile pics?
Posted by Jennifer Eldridge  in  St Petersburg, FL  on  Tue Jun 12, 2007  at  08:05 PM
C
Posted by J. J.  in  South America  on  Tue Aug 14, 2007  at  04:31 AM
hehe nice and funny
Posted by gecelik  on  Wed Jun 23, 2010  at  06:59 AM
As the late Harry Lindley, special advisor to the Royal Family on matters of Highland dress is reputed to have said, "Nothing is worn under the kilt Madam - it's all in perfect working order!"
Posted by Ranger Jim  in  Houston, TX  on  Wed Apr 03, 2013  at  12:30 PM
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.