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 happened.
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 this 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 by 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 pleased guilty. HE DID NOT!

So, NO – Peter was not caught “bumming” or committing any of the other “lewd act” that have been attributed to him by idiots 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 while and, 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 idiots online and spread by the incredulous halfwits that immediately accept everything they read online 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 appears 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 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.

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 6-years. He then moved in with his next girlfriend, Ruby Talbot, at 11, Newton Row, London (a matter of public record).

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 – including the mother of his son.

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 Peter, that’s why I’ve repeatedly offered you the opportunity to produce what it is 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 the 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 ethical 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 can to get yourself noticed and makes 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. Those 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