AN OPEN LETTER

TO:

All the dullards, knuckle-draggers, mindless morons, airheads, clowns, halfwits and ignoramuses who insist on posting poisonous lies and infantile innuendo about Peter Wyngarde on social media.

There appears to be just a handful of topics that you insist upon dredging up each and every time you happen to see Peter’s name online. These are (in no particular order)…

• His arrest in 1975.
• The alleged innumerable other arrests/cautions/convictions.
• Peter’s supposed 10-year romantic relationship with Alan Bates
• The ‘nickname’, Petunia Winegum which, it’s you insist, was “Well know within the acting profession.”.
• The endless bizarre encounter, usually of the homosexual nature.

I: Peter was arrested in Gloucester in 1975. FACT.
II: He was taken to Gloucester Police Station where a statement was prepared by the arresting officer. He refused to sign it as it did not represent what had actually taken place.
III: He was given the opportunity to accept the charges there and then. This would have resulted in a fine and a criminal record, but the incident would’ve probably passed unnoticed by the gutter press. He declined because he wished to look his accusers in the eye across a court of law and be afforded the opportunity to give his version of events.
IV: It was categorically stated in court by his solicitor, Laurence Keen, under oath that Peter was NOT “homosexual”.
V: Photographs of the facilities where the arrest took place were presented to the court. They showed that all the doors were hanging off; cubical walls were in a state of collapse and with large holes in them, and none of the doors had locks on them. Mr. Keen asked: “How could any police officer say with 100% certainty what may or may not have to taken place here involving ANY member of the public, when the building is in such a shameful state of disrepair?” It was agreed by the Bench that the facilities were in an appalling state and should have been closed long since. Nevertheless, Peter was pronounced guilty.
VI: In a statement to the press immediately afterwards, Mr. Keen said that Gloucester Constabulary had been “looking for a scapegoat to justify the inordinate amount of public money that had been sunk into policing this “poachers trap”. Peter was that scapegoat.
VII: The conviction was latterly quashed by the Home Office as being “unproven”. This is a matter of public record.

N.B. It has been stated in the media and elsewhere that Peter pleaded guilty. HE DID NOT!

So, NO – Peter was not caught “bumming” or committing any of the other “lewd act” that has been attributed to him by some of you online.

2:

In 2012, Wikipedia claimed that, in 1974, Peter had been arrested and cautioned for “cottaging” in Kennedy Gardens, Birmingham. The individual responsible for posting this cited his source as a book entitled, ‘Crimes Through Time: The Black Museum’ by Stephen Richards (Mirage Publishing – 2003). However, no mention of such an incident appeared in that book.

When the conglomerate that runs the Peter Wyngarde ‘Biography’ on Wikipedia realised that this allegation was untrue, they removed it from their website, but by that juncture, the gannets at The (Daily) Mirror had seized upon it and rehashed it in more than one issue of their ‘paper. Given the symbiotic relationship that exists between the UK media and Wikipedia – i.e. lazy journalists relying on W.P. when writing articles rather than doing any proper research of their own. In turn, W.P. insist that the press are an irrefutable source – when the group that jealously guard the W.P. Peter Wyngarde ‘Biography’ saw the story republished by The Mirror, they immediately reuploaded it back onto their website.

When writing my book, ‘Peter Wyngarde: A Life Amongst Strangers‘ (2020), I contacted West Midlands Police (known as Birmingham City Police at the time this incident was alleged to have taken place) to enquire if they had any record of any such arrest or caution taking place. They did NOT! IT NEVER HAPPENED!

Since this lie was first published by Wikipedia in 2012, the story has taken on a life of its own. Over the years, innumerable places and incidents have been dreamed up by people online and spread by the incredulous halfwits that immediately accept everything they read is gospel. According to them, Peter was arrested, charged and/or convicted for importuning in places as far afield as Nottingham, Birmingham, Southampton, Portsmouth, Hyde Park
Corner… the list goes on and on. NONE of them are true! In fact, when some of these incidents were said to have taken place, he wasn’t even in the country!

3:

According to author Donald Spoto’s 2007 book, ‘Otherwise Engaged – The Life of Alan Bates’ (Hutchinson – 2007), Peter and Bates moved into a flat in Earl’s Terrace, Kensington in 1956. This is NOT TRUE. Peter moved into the property ALONE in November 1958 (you can see the original tenancy agreement on our website here ).

At the time, Bates was appearing in a long-running play in New York, therefore could only have moved into the flat in the Spring of 1959 at the earliest, Indeed, he only appeared on the Electoral Roll as living there from 1960.

Between 1957 and 1959, Peter was living with his girlfriend, Ruby Talbot at 11, Newton Row, London (again, a matter of public record).

Between 1958 and 1961, Peter was in a relationship with Vivien Leigh, with whom he appeared in the play, ‘Duel of Angels’, both in the West End and on Broadway. In 1962, Bates went to live in America with Rock Hudson for two years. In 1965, he bought his own house at 122, Hamilton Terrace, St. John’s Wood, so moved out of the flat in Earls
Terrace. Rather than the two men “living together” for 10-years, it was more like 6 years, and then rarely at the same time (both worked abroad during that time and were engaged in long running theatrical tours)!

At the time, it was not unusual for jobbing actors to share accommodation to help keep their expenditure down while working in London. Indeed, Alan Bates also shared flats with Peter O’Toole, Richard Briars, Keith Baxter and Brian Bedford. I have never read any salacious gossip online about any of the above.

4:

The supposed “nickname” – ‘Petunia Winegum’ which, it’s claimed (again by Donald Spoto) had been widely used by others in the film, TV and theatre industries since the 1950’s, Again, this is wholly inaccurate. The name was coined by actor, Roy Kinnear (who himself had once shared a flat with Alan Bates), while he and Peter were filming different episodes of The Avengers at Elstree Studios in the 1960’s (Kinnear, ‘The See-Through Man’ and Peter, ‘Epic’). This was confirmed by Dame Diana Rigg in an interview in the 1980’s, so it couldn’t possibly have been “widely used” in the 1950’s.

The name was latterly used by The Two Ronnies in a sketch in the early 1970’s.

5:

Peter was NOT homosexual.

His first girlfriend’s name was Violet la Perna (there is a photograph of them together in my book).

For several years, he dated a young actress while in Rep at Richmond theatre in the 1950’s called Pamala Galloway.

He married to the actress, Dorinda Stevens. The marriage lasted over 5-years. He then moved in with his next girlfriend, Ruby Talbot, at 11, Newton Row, London.

He had a 5-year relationship with Vivien Leigh. He also had relationships with Mary Ure, Anna Massey, Diana Dors and Nyree Dawn Porter, in addition to models, Elisabeth Skjortekjole and Kay Shanton. There were several ladies outside of the acting profession.

Despite me challenging many of you who have made statement concerning Peter’s sexuality, not a single one of you has been able to produce a single scrap of evidence to substantiate what you’ve been shouting your mouth off about. Despite everything that’s been said, I still believe in the kind of fairness and respect that you have never once
afforded to Peter, that’s why I’ve repeatedly offered you the opportunity to produce what it is that you base your assertions concerning Peter’s alleged relationships with men (beyond what you’ve read in the gutter press and on social media forums, of course). I’ve said many times that both I and those friends of Peter’s with whom I’ve remained in contact, would very much appreciate you enlightening us as to your professed privileged insight.

In almost every instance, you have been surprised – even shocked – when your misguided assertions have been challenged by someone who actually knew Peter. In these instances, you have either slithered back under the stone from where you came in the vain hope that no one has noticed what a fool you’ve made of yourself, or you’ll make a last-ditched attempt to save face by screaming foul-mouth obscenities and personal insults. In view of the arrest in 1975, you appear to believe that you now have permission to say whatever you damn well please about Peter because, to your mind at least, he deserves it. Your vitriol is born out of decades of misinformation and crass, online gossip which you yourselves have eagerly lapped up and repeated. If any one of you had so much of an ounce
of sense, not to mention an ounce of integrity, you would at least make rudimentary enquires about the legitimacy of what you’ve read before scurrying off to repeat it.

Have you any idea what it’s like for someone like me who had a 30-year relationship with Peter; who loved and still mourns him, to read this vile rubbish? Probably not, because where there’s no sense there’s no feeling! Just try to imagine how you might feel if you were to read similar wild allegations about one of your loved ones!

I’m certain that there’s not one amongst you who would have had the guts to look Peter in the eye when he was alive and say the kind of things you’ve been spouting online, but then cowards prefer to cower behind a computer screen where there’s no chance of them being held accountable for what they say. I do wonder how you’re able to face your own families when you’ve been systematically posting such filth about someone who can no longer defend himself on a public forum. I mean, how do you advise your children and grandchildren on moral values and how they should behave towards others?

Peter never knowingly hurt a living soul. As a child he fought to survive for five years in a Japanese Internment Camp; suffering disease, torture and malnutrition. While still battling Malaria and the broken bones in his feet inflicted by Japanese guards, and no more than a child himself, he was left to take care of his two younger siblings, before pulling himself up by his bootstraps to reach Broadway and the West End. I’ll wager that the vast majority of you have achieved little or nothing in your own miserable existence, so mocking a dead man and spreading spurious gossip is the only way you’re able to get yourself noticed and make yourself feel important. While Peter received worldwide acclaim for his work and won the approval of audiences and critics alike, you appear to measure success by how many laughing emojis you’re awarded by the other wastrels that surround you – all at someone else’s expense.

Even for those of you who can read, the likelihood of what I’ve said here actually registering with you is probably next to zero – not least because you need at least a single brain cell to experience empathy or to show understanding. Unlike you, I’m not a vindictive person, so I’ll just say that I hope the nefarious creatures you associate with, and those whose approval you seek, are a little less vitriolic about your loved ones when they pass. My hopes aren’t high, since those who dish it out are seldom able to take it!

Tina Wyngarde-Hopkins and friends of Peter Wyngarde – 6th September, 2026

Response From UK Nostalgia Vibe

Saturday, 11th September, 2026 I was quite taken aback that an innocent post about a 1970s actor would result in the publication of an open letter Couple of things for context: 1) Facebook is a wild west. I neither defend nor promote any of the views of our audience – the comment section is an open forum. The comments about PW are no more or less positive/negative in my opinion than in any of the other posts we put out. People can be mean and people can be sweet. 2) PW is one of the most enigmatic celebrities I’ve written about – for many reasons. The Telegraph , Guardian – all the mainstream publications seem to agree that his life was one of mystery https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2018/01/18/peter-wyngarde-actor-known-flamboyant-jason-king-obituary/ Hence, the best I can do is provide context, and do my best not to promote falsehoods I’m not able to publish your open letter. But I may write another FB post and link to your letter. I appreciate you contacting us and if there are any ways we can help, let me know. Regards (No signature’ was provided on this occasion)

Reply Tina Wyngarde-Hopkins

Thank you for getting back to me. My letter wasn’t aimed at you personally or the original post – only at some of the idiots that latched on to it. What was being said on there in some instances was utterly appalling. I genuinely did wonder if anyone was going to step in and say, “Enough’s enough!” Sadly, that never happened. I run a Fecebook group myself, which is part of the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society. We’ve had our moments with the moronic element that frequents social media, but I’ve learned over the years that if you give such types an inch, they’ll take a mile. I now run a ‘One strike and you’re out’ policy, and thankfully we seem to have rid ourselves of the type of lowlifes that I witnessed last week. I’ve seen all the articles in the press about Peter (thank you for the link) – all written by people who never came within a country mile of him or anyone he knew. There’s no “mystery” about him. My book, ‘Peter Wyngarde: A Life Amongst Strangers’ was published in 2020 and became an international best seller, and our website has more information on it than on any other actor or musician on the planet but, alas, journalists appear too lazy to conduct any proper research these days. They’d rather sit with their feet up on their desk and rely on Wikipedia instead for the ‘facts’. I wrote the book in the hope it would dispel the rubbish written about Peter online. Sadly, some people are so credulous that they’ll believe anything they read without enquiry, and spread it without a moment’s hesitation – hence the type of scenes witnessed last week. As you may or may not have noticed, I did challenge many of them* – something I’m sure they didn’t expect. They responded one of two ways: either they slithered back under the stone they’d come from, or resorted to using foul language and hurling abuse (a sure sign they had nowhere else to go). Whichever, none of them could muster anything above a gaseous whimper when they realised they’d been skewered. As I said when I contacted you, some of Peter’s family and friends were prepared to report those responses to your post to Meta – not least because of the homophobic and misogynistic content of some of them – but I asked them not to in lieu of any response I might receive from you. I’ll pass on your message to them. I’ve since published the Letter on our website at www.peterwyngarde.uk, to which there has been a huge response. I’ll add the emails and comments received in due course Thank you anyway for taking the time to reply. It may be just a well that you didn’t publish my letter as I suspect few of those involved in this horrendous episode would have the intelligence to understand what was being said. Regards, Tina Wyngarde-Hopkins *See some of the posts and Tina’s responses here

Reply UK Nostalgia Vibe

Hi Tina Thanks for your considered response. I know that none of this was directed personally.I do beg to differ however about the ‘mystery’ element however. I have a spreadsheet with around 800 names of celebs which I use for research and possible content ideas for the FB page PW is, if not at the top of the list, is certainly in the top 3, with regards to trying to find a verifiable consensus about who a particular person is. I realise you run a fan-site but the very nature that it’s a fan-site means it’s not an objective source – ie opinions there are only ever going to get written by friends, not enemies! Yes, there are biographies, and there are hagiographies too. Most of the time, ‘facts’ are easily cross-referenced across multiple sources. This is not the case with Peter. I’m making no judgements, merely observations. And to truthful, I actually love the mystery – even the fact you took Peter’s name adds intrigue to the whole story. What happened, in my view, in this Facebook post, is a reflection of all of this. ie ‘facts’ not adding up, and in response, some folks parroting half-truths, perhaps whole-truths, but without any real certainty of either. As I mentioned in the previous message, Facebook is a cess-pit. But the comments about PW were, in my opinion, almost on the level of benign – ie just random folk chatting as they do down the pub. I didn’t sense any vitriol, hatred, nothing of that sort. Believe me, I’ve seen 1000x worse things posted in public on this platform So, I understand you feel protective. But honestly, I see this as a reality check. People talk, people gossip, people speculate, some people are nasty. This is the world we live in – get a crash helmet, as they say. I may or may not write about Peter in the future again. But TBH, I don’t have much appetite for it, despite being genuinely intrigued by what seems a fascinating life. Reason being, I feel his life was not an open book (and again I make no judgement) and I wouldn’t want to publish anything that I could not back up with solid citations Once again thanks for you civility – it’s a rare thing on this platform! I wish you all the best Jeff

Fans Comments

Well, I do think a signature, owning what you’ve written, would be expected. I’m not sure the word ‘innocent’ applies to comments made. Each is made with intent, good or bad, which can also be either in the eye of any reader. I don’t think comments are put out to solicit the innocent. I think they are there to stimulate reaction, and sometimes the more extreme the better; such is the nature of some parts of social media. I do think those posting forget that a well-known personality or star are only public property up to a point. They are also feeling human beings who have/had people who are close to them. Just because that person is no longer with us does not mean they don’t have someone still living who knew them, was close to them and can be hurt by careless unjust talk. So ‘man of mystery’ may fit his acting persona, esp in some roles, as befitted many stars of old. They were even created so. Peter Wyngarde seems to me to be one of the most genuine people outside of his roles, and not a total man of mystery when you consider Tina knew him well for at least 30+ years and wrote an excellently detailed biography with Peter’s input along the way. The person who wrote this letter about Peter being mysterious seems to have taken their misinformation from newspapers. I’m surprised they haven’t heard of Tina’s book, but they certainly can’t have read it. Time they did. I’ll say just one thing in this person’s favour. They replied. Still should have signed the letter… Jane Ramsden

The UK Nostalgia UK admin describes the exchanges generated by his post as being akin to a group of people chatting over a pint in the pub. Utter RUBBISH! A private conversation between friends in a bar is confined to those within that group. The discussion in question, if it can be described as such, took place on an open forum which was likely, and did, draw out an increasing number of illiterate morons to what became a feeding frenzy. I was under the impression that Facebook group admins have a duty to monitor what is posted by their members and to remove any kind of profanity and personal abuse. Why was this not done? Why did ‘Jeff’ sit idly by and allow this to go on? If I was Tina, I’d have encouraged Peter’s old friends report it to Meta. I’ve been a member of the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society Facebook group for over 10 years, and during that it’s always been a really friendly place where no one has to resort to screaming insults or running other people down. ‘Jeff’ is right about one thing. Social media is a cesspit and the reason it is so is because admins of social media groups don’t do enough to ensure that those people who are unable to behave like reasonable human beings are kicked out. They’re the ones that are turning the internet into a place where normal, decent people no longer wish to venture. I suspect that if ‘Jeff’ doesn’t get a grip and step in when these things start getting out of hand as they did last weekend {5/9/26], someone will end reporting his group to Facebook/Meta. I don’t know how long UK Nostalgia Vibe has been online, but it would be a shame if F.B. did end up removing it from their platform. Kudos to Tina for standing up to these idiots J. Makin

Sounds a bit of a cop out to me…John Church I don’t know why he bothered writing it and it adds insult to injury. Justin Davidson

Jeff appeared to be put out that someone should contact him to set him straight on this. It shouldn’t have to take a third party to point out his obligations as a group admin to keep an orderly ship. I agree with J. Makin [see above]. Jeff’s assertion that what went on was the social media version of some mates talking in a pub. Oh, please! It’s not the same at all! A conversation in a pub is usually private, and if it happens to get a bit rowdy and ends up dragging others into it, any landlord worth his salt would intervene, either by telling the participants to keep it civil or leave. THAT’S what Jeff should have done, but he chose not to It’s this kind of inaction by those who can that has turned social media is such a sh*thole. And what in Christ’s name was someone who acknowledges that social media is a cesspit doing inviting comment by posting something about the sexuality of someone he didn’t know, had never met and is no longer here to defend himself? It genuinely beggers belief. Marcus Price

PETER WYNGARDE WAS NOT GAY. THIS IS A MYTH CONJOURED UP BY THE BRITISH TABLOIDS

PETER WYNGARDE DID NOT HAVE A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP WITH ALAN BATES. THIS WAS A LIE PERPITRATED BY DONALD SPOTO IN HIS BOOK, ‘OTHERWISE ENGAGED: THE LIFE OF ALAN BATES’

PETER WYNGARDE WAS NOT ARRESTED OR CAUSTIONED IN KENNEDY GARDENS OR ELSEWHERE. THIS IS A LIE CREATED BY WIKIPEADIA AND COPIED BY THE BRITISH TABLOIDS.

THE 1975 CONVICTION AGAINST PETER WYNGARDE WAS LATTERLY QUASHED BY THE HOME OFFICE (UK GOVERNMENT) AS BEING “UNPROVEN”.