How to put a knuckle-Dragger back in their box in one easy lesson!

Field: (Describing Peter): “Bent as a nine bob note. My ex husband and his workmates were working on a whole row of houses in Chelsea, can’t remember what it was called now, but Madonna had one, they had an underground car park, swimming pools in the basement, etc, and he (Peter?) would be outside every morning, cup of tea/coffee and fag in hand, wearing little white hot pants and staring at all the different tradesmen, “Morning boys”, he’d say, my ex said he made his skin crawl, this was in the late 80’s.

Me: I was with Peter for 30 years, right up to his death in 2018, and I can assure you that he wasn’t “as bent as a nine bob note” then!

I remember very well the workmen being there as I spoke with them myself on occasion. I recall one of them telling us about his wife who’d been a life-long Jason King fan. Peter and I would often make tea for them and take out biscuits. It’s desperately sad that this was construed by your “ex” as something more sinister (no good deed ever goes unpunished?!). I suggest that what your “ex” told you says far more about him than it ever could about my Peter. Perhaps said “ex” was secretly pissed because Peter showed no interest in him, or that there was obviously a woman on the scene, and so concocted this story in lieu of a full-on hissy fit(?) Either way, it makes my skin crawl to hear such nonsense!

Poor Gaynor’s “ex” was evidently the end product of blind belief in tabloid tittle-tattle, combined with his own in-bred bigotry. He construed a friendly “Hello” as something more sinister, and not only that, he went home and spun a yarn to his gullible wife who, years later, repeated it on a gossip forum.

I find that people like silly Gaynor, when challenged by someone who was actually there and knows what they’re talking about, will either slither back under the stone from where they originated in the vain hope that no-one has noticed what a complete and utter fool they’re made of themselves, or when they realise they’ve been skewered, will resort to foul-mouth abuse and personal insults because they have nowhere else to go.

Gullible Gaynor’s Score’s On The Doors are:

Here’s a few more corkers for your delectation…

Robert Watson: He (Peter) was just a little bit gay though.

Me: He wasn’t during the 30 year relationship I had with him. Or when he was in relationships with actresses Pamela Galloway, Dorinda Stevens, Ruby Talbot, Vivien Leigh, Mary Ure, Anna Massey, Diana Dors, Kay Shanton and Elisabeth Skjorekjole (both models), Sally Home, Nyree Dawn Porter, Lady Victoria Berkley… the list goes on. I suspect you never came within a 1,000 radius of him during his lifetime, OR anyone who knew him. Your spectacular insight is doubtless based on tabloid tittle-tattle, internet gossip and that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia.

Robert Watson:: ok (sic) calm down’

Me: You do know that penis enlargers are widely available online, so there’s no need for you to attack people who are no longer here to defend themselves and lash out at women to feel more of a man!

On realising that he’d had his chair kicked out from under him, Watson went to the only defence he had, misogyny! The “ok calm down” jibe was his way of saying “Right! I’m taking my ball home now because I realise I’ve been beaten by a woman!”. Another case of those knowing the least knowing it the loudest.

Watson’s Score’s On The Doors are:

Knuckle-Dragger Score (out of five)

No Name: “I saw him (Peter) at a film fair. He was wearing a baseball cap that he’d written FCUK on the front of it in gold ink” (This post attracted the grand total of 4 laughing emojis, not counting Mr. No Name’s own).

The inane laughter ended abruptly when I said, “The cap was a gift from his 9-year old godson who had terminal cancer. Not so hilarious now!”

Mr. No-Names Score’s On The Doors are:

Knuckle-Dragger Score (out of five)

Bowlocks: Heartthrob. He was a joke!

Me: Really? He was one of the most respected actors of the British stage; won praise from all quarters, and was presented with some of the most coveted awards in international theatre and television. Out of interest, what have you achieved that affords you the luxury of sitting in judgement of others?

George Bowlocks: (Unable to answer my question, all he could come back with was….) We thought he was hilarious when I was at school. A peacock.

Me: I’m sure he would’ve reciprocated given the opportunity.

George Bowlocks: That makes no sense. Do you mean he would have thought we were a peacock? Also, what are converted awards?

Me: No. He wouldve thought you were a joke! And for the record, the word is COVETED not CONVERTED. Perhaps if you and your mates had paid more attention when you was at school and spent less time poking fun at people you considered a “joke”, you may well have spotted that!

When he realised he’d painted him into a corner, poor ol’ George began blathering on about women “creaming their knickers” over Peter in the 1970’s. When he finally clocked that he was screaming abuse at someone who’d shared a 30-year relationship with Peter as opposed to a hysterical fan, he seemingly disappeared up his own backside. I dare say that a charmer like him would’’ve had women fighting like wild cats to “cream” their draws over him!

Bowlock’s Score’s On The Doors are:

Knuckle-Dragger Score (out of five)

Price: I met him in the 70s and he was much more interested in my boyfriend than any of the women. He was positively rude to me.

Me::Genuinely, you’re the first person I’ve ever come across who claims that Peter was rude to them. He has only ever been described as charming, gentlemanly and kind. Perhaps he was having a bad day, or didn’t much care for the company of certain people in the group.

Price: possibly. I certainly didn’t like him. Maybe he thought I was in his way!

Me: How so – like you were sitting in his seat? Or blocking the corridor, perhaps?

Again, this is the result of what you get with the type of people who put their blind faith in gutter rag tittle-tattle.

Lesley’s Score’s On The Doors are:

Knuckle-Dragger Score (out of five)

The next Freudian delight is Peter Dron, who made this extremely intelligent observation on Facebook in response to the posting of an image of Peter and Lucille Ball in the TV special, ‘Lucy In London‘: “Wyngarde was certainly a curio, it is alleged.”

Me: “I assume your conclusions are based entirely on tabloid newspaper reports that have long since been discredited? I had a 30 year relationship with Peter – from 1992 to 2018 when he passed away. He was a wonderfully kind, intelligent and talented man, who is deeply missed by those of us loved him.”

Dron: “Fair enough. However, there was the case some years earlier involving “gross indecency with a crane driver in public toilets in Gloucester bus station” to which Mr Cyril Goldbert pleaded guilty. Curious, indeed.”

Me: “Actually, he DIDN’T plead guilty, and you’ll find that that conviction was inevitably quashed by the Home Office as being “unproven”. That is a matter of public record. Keep up!

Dron: And I presume that Alan Bates was just a “chum”, whatever you choose that to mean.

Me: Oh dear – a Donald Spoto devotee. Peter was married to actress Dorinda Stevens for 5 years. Had a five year relationship with Vivien Leigh. Also had relationships with Mary Ure, Diana Dors, Nyree Dawn Porter; models Kay Shanton and Elisabeth Skjortekjole plus several women outside the theatrical world. I note you haven’t mentioned any of them. This is why there’s an old adage that states that a little knowledge is such a dangerous thing. Perhaps if you tried to educate yourself BEFORE making wild postulations based on the work of a single author who was known in the industry as “Mr. Sensationalism” (look Spoto up) and see for yourself the kind of rubbish he peddled about other actors and directors.

Dron: Or perhaps you are tolerant and not exceptionally observant.

Me: Dear God! Have you heard yourself? Your level of arrogance is truly breath taking! I spent thirty years with that man, during which time we shared a relationship of complete transparency. I had direct access to his private letters, diaries, and extensive documentation dating back to the early 1950’s. In contrast, there you stand with your copy of The Mirror or The Sun tucked under your arm – believing they had some privileged insight, rather than being nothing but malevolent muckrakers who were making it up as they went along!

In 2020, I published a book specifically to refute the baseless rumours that individuals like yourself continue to propagate. In that work, I presented irrefutable, first-hand documentary evidence to substantiate my claims, something none of the gutter rags or trashy authors you rely on were ever able to do. Much of this evidence is available on my website at www.peterwyngarde.uk and in numerous public records that are available to everyone online, free of charge. Why don’t you have a look – you might actually learn something.

I suggest you look beyond the filth peddled by the tabloids. In the meantime, you might care to ponder on this: Imagine how you would feel if some random, ill-informed idiot popped up online one day and began spreading lies and long-discredited myths regarding one of YOUR loved ones and then refused to acknowledge the facts when confronted. I suspect you would find the experience distressing; So why do you feel it’s acceptable to do it to one of mine?

Oh, what’s the point? Where there’s no sense, there’s no feeling! If nothing else, you’ve provided me with useful material for a section of my website dedicated to highlighting just this type of idiotic encounter. You’ll definitely be in good company.

It’s typical of people like Dron, who seems far more willing to place their faith in sensationalist tabloid claims and the word of a widely criticised author than in the testimony of someone who actually shared Peter’s life for three decades. Rather than weighing evidence carefully or considering the value of first-hand knowledge, he appeared eager to accept dramatic headlines and second-hand gossip as unquestionable truth. It’s a curious position to take, given that a person who spent thirty years alongside someone would naturally possess a far deeper understanding of their character, experiences, and private life than journalists chasing a story or repeating rumours.

What makes Dron appear particularly small-minded is his apparent readiness to loudly express his opinions before ensuring he is in full possession of the facts. Instead of listening, asking questions, or examining all available information, he rushed to judgement with great confidence and very little humility. Such behaviour can give the impression of someone more interested in proving himself right than in discovering the truth. When a person chooses assumptions and headlines over direct knowledge and lived experience, it inevitably raises questions about the fairness and credibility of their conclusions.

Dron’s Score’s On The Doors are:

Knuckle-Dragger Score (out of five)

It is evident that many of the individuals mentioned above lack the necessary insight to contribute meaningfully to any discussion about Peter. Rather than abstaining from the conversation, they have chosen to post unsubstantiated claims that only serve to highlight their lack of understanding. Inevitably, the subject of the 1975 Gloucester Bus Station incident was raised… AGAIN!… a matter that was effectively resolved by the British Home Office some years ago. Furthermore, several participants claimed that Peter had been arrested in Newcastle, Southampton, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Nottingham and even at Hyde Park Corner. Given the frequency of these alleged incidents, one wonders how he found the time to maintain his acting career!

It appears unlikely that any of these individuals fully grasped the points raised when they were challenged. A few were contrite upon realising they’d been looking down the wrong end of the telescope all these years; others, however, resorted to abusive language when they realised they had nowhere else to go.

There were, nonetheless, a few absurd moments. One gentleman claimed that Peter had resided in a castle in Northumberland. When I mentioned that this was news to me, he asserted that Peter had made public appearances there and claimed a personal connection to the owner. He subsequently provided a screenshot of a post by said friend. It transpired that the castle is, in fact, a hotel, and Peter had simply stayed there a couple of times while working at the Forum Billingham Theatre. Consequently, he hadn’t “lived” there at all!

Predictably, the original post was shared across several Facebook groups, attracting a further wave of opportunistic critics who professed to be well-informed. One individual commented on a photo of Peter, describing him as “camp as Christmas.” I pointed out that this supposedly effete man had maintained a series of relationships with women, all of whom I have previously named. The response from this individual was that, despite these relationships, he “preferred his own type.” I asked him, given his purported expertise, to provide the names of these men – not least because many of Peter’s friends with whom I’ve remained in contact would no doubt appreciated being enlightened by such privileged insight. Despite my providing an email address to facilitate a discreet response, I have yet to hear from this character – a result that is hardly surprising. As with everyone mentioned here, not one person was able to provide evidence to support ANY of their claims when pressed.

This behaviour is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, a psychological condition where individuals with limited competence overestimate their own ability and speak with unearned authority on subjects they have no understanding of.

While Peter received critical acclaim for his work both domestically and internationally, those who delight in spreading misinformation from behind the safety of a computer screen have likely achieved very little of note. They seem to measure success by the number of “laughing” emojis they can accumulate. It is, however, quite satisfying to see that confidence vanish when confronted with the truth.

😂😂😂

Here are an couple more examples of the mentality of the internet gossip–monger

One of the most bizarre encounters I’ve ever had with the dazed and confused occurred back in September 2021.It came courtesy of Frank – a 75-year-old gentleman, who rather loudly stated on social media that Peter was a “Pervert” because – to quote him – “He was convicted of Gross Indecency in 1975 in Gloster (sic).”

While the arrest may well have been so, such a conviction alone does not necessarily mean that someone is a “Pervert”. Therefore, I inquired of this obviously bewildered old man what further evidence he possessed to support this rather severe accusation. “Well,” he snorted, “he was also cautioned for the same offence in Birmingham. That makes him a perv,” he asserted with all the conviction of his own intellect. Really?! “And from where did you obtain this information?”

“It’s on Google.”

“And where, pray, did Google source it from?” I probed. Not unsurprisingly, the ridiculous old goat was unable to provide an answer, and so I filled the deafening silence he was creating by regaling him with what had REALLY happened concerning this alleged incident – namely that it was a tale concocted by a contributor to the Peter Wyngarde ‘biography’ on Wikipedia in 2012. I then directed him to all the gathered evidence presented on our website that unequivocally scotches the rumour.

So what effect did this revelation have on gullible Frank when he realised he’d not only been barking up the wrong tree, but was in entirely the wrong forest?

“But it still says it on Google,” he whimpered. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

I felt compelled to explain to the old fool in the simplest language I could possibly muster that, Google is a search engine, and as long as wizened idiots like himself kept feeding it garbage like strawberries to a donkey, it will continue to spew garbage out! I asked how he would react if someone was to circulate spurious gossip on a public forum about one of his loved ones? He couldn’t even manage so much as a gaseous whinny to what I believed was a perfectly reasonable question, before vanishing back into the cesspit from whence he came.

Poor, poor Frank! It really does make you wonder how such people manage to reach such a ripe old age when they’re obviously devoid of even the most basic logic.

It appears that humanity has progressively diminished its capacity for independent thought. This is exemplified by individuals who encounter anonymous statements online and accept them as fact without question, then replicating and disseminating such information. It seldom occurs to these characters to investigate the source of the information: whether the author was directly involved in the event, a first-hand witness, or possessed a personal relationship with Peter. Furthermore, they fail to consider if the source attended a court hearing or possesses privileged documents, such as witness statements or official transcripts.

Given that the answer to these questions is almost invariably “no,” there’s little justification for the circulation of scandalous rumours. It’s highly probable that such individuals would never approach a stranger in person to levy accusations of being a “pervert” against a family member or friend. As boxer Mike Tyson once observed, “Social media has made people far too comfortable saying things without getting a punch on the nose!”

The second portion of absurdity on the agenda came from a woman called Margaret, who asserted that her brother had, at one time or another, lived “near” Peter in London. He’d regaled her with tales of how he used to see our man in his car – cruising around Kensington and Chelsea with his “toy boys.” When I questioned this, Margaret’ abruptly shifted the identity of the eyewitness from her “brother” to herself: “The young men,” she insisted, “all appeared to be foreign.” How on earth could she possibly know that? Were they all adorned in keffiyehs or silk kimonos and playing the Balalaika? And when exactly did this occur? “In the late 60s or early 70s. He [Peter] then went to ground.” Oh, really!

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the sole vehicle Peter owned was a two-seater Austin-Healey ‘Frogeye’. Therefore, unless he was attempting to re-enacting a scene from the classic British game show, ‘It’s A Knockout’, I find it difficult to comprehend how many “foreign toy boys” one could possibly shoehorn into such a car?!

Left: An illustration of what Peter’s car likely resembled in the 1960’s, at least according to dear old Margaret... or was it her brother…?

I presume that the point she was trying to convey was that Peter frequently drove around the Royal Boroughs of London accompanied by a group of young, exotic men, which, in her tiny, tiny mind (or indeed her “brother’s” – who can tell?!), unequivocally indicated that they were his romantic partners. Did this, in her view, provide a comprehensive understanding of Peter’s entire existence? Alas, I was never able to ascertain this, as Margaret would abruptly ‘go to ground’ once she recognised she’d backed herself into a corner! Now, if I were to be uncharitable, I might speculate that her sudden withdrawal from the field of play was related to her argument collapsing under scrutiny, but let us extend her the benefit of the doubt, shall we?

For Margaret’s information if no one else’s – during the late 1960s and early 1970s, Peter was at the pinnacle of his fame. He was the highest-paid actor on British television and was performing to sold-out audiences in the West End of London. How this could possibly be interpreted as ‘going to ground’ remains a mystery, but it’s likely that the old dear was becoming somewhat confused.

It’s highly probable that dear ol’ Margaret – or was it her brother, as she seemed uncertain of the detail – had seen Peter in his ‘Frogeye’ with A.N. Other male, such as a friend, fellow actor or his personal assistant, and initially gave the matter little thought. However, courtesy of tabloid tittle-tattle post 1975, a revisionist interpretation began to take hold. Occasional sightings of Peter with another man was retrospectively transformed from a mundane day-to-day encounter into something far more salacious. The narrative shifted dramatically; the two-seater sports car was reimagined as a conveyance for a succession of foreign male lovers, whose presence was apparently signalled so thunderously that their distinct accents could be heard by her (or her sibling?! Now I’M becoming confused!!). It’s little wonder that such baseless myths continue to circulate online regarding Peter, when basket cases like Margaret are somehow able to put 2 and 2 together and come up with 95!

Rumours are carried by haters,
Spread by fools
and accepted by idiots!
Ziad K. Abdelnour – Author

See the Open Letter that was sent to the admin of the UK Nostalgia Vibe, his reply and Wyngarde fans reaction here.

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”.

Broadcast: 15th February, 1965

Character: Guido Venanzi

The Story

The plot involves an unusual and cynical love triangle that is strictly governed by social conventions.

Leone Gala (Anthony Quayle) is a detached and highly intellectual individual who has distanced himself from his volatile wife, Silia (Gwen Watford). Overwhelmed by a sense of entrapment and profoundly annoyed by her husband’s complete apathy, so seeks to shatter his icy demeanor and takes Guido Venanzi (Peter Wyngarde) as her lover.

Stila sees her chance to when, one evening, a band of drunken soldiers inadvertently burst into her apartment, believing it to be a brothel. Their ringleader is a well-known swordsman in the area. She perceives a chance to exploit “the rules of the game” – the stringent codes of bourgeois honour – to compel her husband into a lethal duel, with the hope that he will be slain. Leone calmly agrees to extend the challenge, but applies the same rules as Stila with devises a brilliant and devastating counter-strategy by choosing Guido as his Second.

Guido attempts to dissuade Leone from engaging in the perilous duel, but Leone remains resolute. Frustrated and constrained by the rigid formalities of the event, Guido escalates the duel’s conditions to demonstrate his own honour, inadvertently sealing his own fate.

As the duel commences, Leone strategically steps aside, adhering to the technicalities and “rules of the game” that he has cleverly manipulated. Since Guido established the stringent terms and is serving as the substitute, he is compelled to take Leone’s place on the field, resulting in his death.

Leone is completely exonerated under the established laws of society and honour, having skillfully distanced himself while employing those same rules to eliminate his adversary.

In Retrospect

“The Rules of the Game” aligns closely with the modern European tradition of incisive reflections on the complexities of gender relations. It is also a quintessential Pirandello piece, illustrating characters ensnared in the ambiguous space between reality and appearance.

When Leone Gala remarks to Guido, who may or may not be the lover of his wife Silia (though he is certainly a very attentive visitor), “You only see her the way she seems,” this observation applies to all the characters. Guido, who presents himself as a man of action, remains passive when a group of drunken soldiers intrudes and assaults Silia. Leone, who is deeply engrossed in philosophical contemplation, ultimately reveals himself to be the most cunning and pragmatic survivor of the group. Silia, despite her dramatic temperament, sexual magnetism, and influence over men, admits to her dissatisfaction with her identity as a woman – except when it involves inflicting pain on men.

Silia’s discontent partly stems from her confinement within the concept of ‘Womanliness,’ where she embodies the roles of temptress, ghost, wife, mistress, spoiled child, and matriarch – each shaped by male perceptions, akin to the scrutinizing gaze of a libertine. She represents a series of locked doors – even to herself—similar to many of Pirandello’s other characters, for whom the idea of identity is both profound and elusive.

The narrative is set in the 1930s, a period marked by the rise of fascism in Italy, and the characters’ dialectical confusions further reflect a social and political framework that is faltering and losing its rationale for existence.

Leone, who has the majority of the definitive lines, frequently emphasizes the significance of adhering to one’s own “concept,” asserting that his is one of ethereal renunciation. (At one point, he tells Silia, “To save you, I had to renounce those emotions of love and hate. I had to detach myself.”) However, his renunciation of “the judgments and entanglements of a ridiculous world” is paradoxically intertwined with his uncritical acceptance of it, as he proclaims to others, “I agree to everything.”

Leone appears to have a response for every inquiry, and those around him seem eager to contemplate his insights. While “Rules of the Game” may not serve as a purely theatrical exploration of human mystery like “Six Characters in Search of an Author,” it comfortably resides within the Continental tradition, where stimulating dialogue can often substitute for action.

Pirandello’s unexpected conclusion, in which Leone’s self-interest shifts from enlightened to malevolent, serves as a stark warning regarding the destruction that self-centered individuals can inflict without experiencing any repercussions themselves.

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”.

Produced by Robert Maugham at the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre, Guilford. September-October, 1966

Character: Hugo Barrett

The story is set in Chelsea, London. Present day.

The Story

Tony Williams (Barry Justice), a prosperous resident of London, claims to be involved in a project aimed at constructing cities in Brazil. He moves into his newly acquired townhouse in Chelsea and employs Hugo Barrett (Peter Wyngarde) as his manservant. Although Tony possesses wealth, he lacks resolve, discipline, and a true understanding of his own life, a fact that Barrett perceives within moments of their introduction.

Barrett seems to adapt effortlessly to his new role, and a subtle bond forms between him and Tony, while they maintain their respective social positions. However, the dynamics begin to change when Tony’s girlfriend, Sally Grant (Jennifer Daniel), meets Barrett, who she dislikes immediately..She grows suspicious of him and urges her fiancé to terminate Barrett’s employment, but he declines. This causes tension between the couple, and while they argue and their relationship begins to fall apart, Barrett is always in the background.I

In the meantime, Barrett organizes the household with a level of efficiency that flatters Tony, simultaneously fostering his dependence on Barrett.

Barrett presents Vera to the household as his sister, persuading Tony that a maid is necessary to help with housework. Tony accepts this explanation that they are siblings without question. Vera, being young and alluring, quickly initiates a calculated seduction of Tony. When the couple return from a foreign holiday unexpectedly and find Barret and Vera in bed together, Tony furiously dismisses the pair of them – but not before Vera makes known that she has been sleeping with Tony behind Sally’s back. Sally reacts by breaking of her engagement to Tony and leaves.

By this stage, Tony has grown dependent on both Barrett and Vera. He starts to drink excessively, a habit worsened by Sally’s refusal to take his calls. One day, Tony runs into Barrett at a pub, where Barrett weaves a story about Vera having deceived them both. He implores Tony to reinstate him as his manservant, and Tony agrees.

Once back in his old position, Barrett starts to drink openly and to introduces unsavory characters into the home. He speaks to Tony with a casual disrespect, occasionally showing little regard for politeness. Tony,, succumbing to alcohol and lethargy, endures every humiliation.

Slowly, the two characters begin to reverse their roles, with Barrett assuming greater control while Tony regresses into a state of infantilism. Barrett also subtly brings Vera back into the household. Sally arrives, attempting to persuade Tony to return to her. She discovers him completely reliant on Barrett, who provides him with alcohol and prostitutes. As she navigates through the grim scene, she unexpectedly kisses Barrett, who responds to her advances with force.

As his behavior becomes increasingly violent, Sally fights to escape his grasp, while Tony, emerging from his drunken haze, tries to step in. Unfortunately, he stumbles and falls to the floor, prompting laughter from Mabel (Edina Ronay), one of the prostitutes. In a fit of rage, Tony lashes out, leading Barrett to command everyone to leave. Before exiting, Sally strikes Barrett with the jeweled collar of her coat. Barrett, taken aback, quickly regains his composure and drapes her coat over her shoulder as she departs. He then ascends the stairs where Vera awaits him, passing by Tony, who is slumped on the floor, clutching a glass of whiskey.

After Thoughts

Barrett is a shrewd and sophisticated servant who gradually takes control of the household and its residents. He orchestrates the seduction of Vera and capitalizes on Tony’s vulnerabilities to disrupt the traditional master-servant relationship. As the balance of power changes, he remains eerily composed and turns the house into a venue for psychological manipulation.

Vera is Barrett’s fiancée, who becomes embroiled in the evolving power dynamics of the household. Although she appears to be an innocent bystander, she employs seduction to maneuver and influence the relationships surrounding her. Her involvement complicates allegiances and intensifies the moral complexity at the core of the narrative.

Susan is Tony’s girlfriend who perceives impending danger and confronts Barrett’s increasing dominance. She evaluates Tony’s connections and moral character, ultimately finding herself marginalized as the struggle for power escalates. Her exit signifies the disintegration of Tony’s previous alliances and the victory of manipulation over genuine affection.

The Servant delves into the true nature of control within a domestic environment. Barrett’s presence disrupts Tony’s sense of authority and gradually alters the power dynamics. Tony’s reliance intensifies as alcohol and submissiveness weaken his hold on independence. The interaction of control, skill, and societal roles fuels the primary conflict.

Barrett weaves a complex web of deceit that obscures the distinctions between servant, lover, and confidant. By creating false personas and exploiting Tony’s vulnerabilities, he transforms the household dynamics. Vera’s allure further complicates the situation, turning love into a means of exerting power. The domestic narrative evolves into a performance aimed at undermining stability.

As allegiances splinter, Susan’s skepticism and Tony’s desire for connection clash with Barrett’s dominance. The romance and camaraderie that once grounded the household disintegrate into manipulation and degradation. The film reaches a climax where vulnerability is weaponized, and the social structure unravels.

Barrett persuades Tony to employ a maid, allowing him to introduce Vera, his fiancée, into the home. His explicit intention is to have Vera seduce Tony as part of his strategy to gain leverage and control over his employer. By ensnaring Tony in a sexual liaison with Vera, Barrett establishes a secret that he can later exploit against him.

Some Background

Following the triumph of the 1963 film adaptation of ‘The Servant’, author Robin Maugham chose to adapt the narrative into a stage play. This production at the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre was regarded as a preliminary performance before its transfer to the Garrick Theatre West End.

At that time, director Ronald Hayman had limited experience in theatre, and, as was often the case with Peter, he found himself directing the director!

Hayman urged Peter to adopt an East London accent for his portrayal of Barrett, a task that proved challenging for him. He argued that if Peter were to pursue this endeavor, it would likely resemble Dick Van Dyke’s portrayal of Bert the chimney sweep in ‘Mary Poppins’, ultimately distracting the audience. This led to a clash between the director and the actor.

In the end, the cast became disillusioned by with Hayman and, inevitably the play inevitably didn’t move to the West End.

Above: From the Surrey Mirror and County Post – 2nd September, 1966

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”.

Broadcast: British Home Service – 25^th February, 1959 at 20.00

Repeated: Under the title ‘National Theatre of the Air’ by the BBC Home Service on 20^th August, 1961 at 20.30, and as ‘The Sunday Play’ by The BBC Home Service on 3^rd April, 1966 at 14.30

Character: Master Wendoll

At the time of broadcast, the BBC had been presenting a series of revived plays by Mr. Raymond Raikes (British theatre producer, director and broadcaster) who appears determined to enlighten theatre-goers about what they have been missing.

‘A Woman Killed with Kindness’ is a domestic tragedy that illustrates the significant sophistication developed in English society since the era that began with ‘Arden of Faversham.’ This examination of manners and attitudes in 1603 highlights the final act of social upheaval that shaped the rural society we recognize today.

The Mountford’s stand as the sole aristocratic survivors, and while they engage in a delaying action, the Frankford’s, with their newfound wealth, advance with the tide of social change. New ideas regarding social morality emerge, and there is a contemporary aspect to Mr. Frankford’s (Norman Woodland) treatment of his unfaithful wife. Anne (Marjory Westbury), who embodies an almost innocent hedonism, and her relationship with Master Wendell (Peter WYngarde), while still rooted in the tradition of courtly love, is emotionally acceptable by today’s standards.

Wendoll resembles more of a correspondent than a rogue or a medieval vice. Although Frankford has the opportunity, he rejects violence as a means of addressing the wrongs inflicted upon him, opting instead for a more severe punishment by banishing his wife. She is remorseful and begins to starve herself, yet Frankford, adhering to his principles, forgives her on her deathbed.

This act of forgiveness provides the play with a tidy climax, which, it must be acknowledged, could verge on banality in the hands of less distinguished actors. A less skillful interpretation of Heywood’s couplets might have rendered the play akin to a poor pantomime, but Mr. Raikes ensured that the end rhymes were sometimes cleverly concealed and at other times deliberately emphasized to unveil a witty conceit.

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”.

1957 – 2020

---

THE TV TIMES: Great Britain: December, 1957

Peter’s first ever cover feature! Here he is as Lionel Collins in ‘Love Her To Death’

TV Times (UK): 13th January, 1963.

Here Peter is pictured (top) in the role of Glenkin in the Associated-Redifusion production of ‘Darkness At Noon’, in which he starred alongside Albert Lieven, Ronald Adamson and Edward Rees.

On The Air (USA): January 1964

Article about the Esso World Theatre –  a showcase of British theatre and performers. Features Peter and Anna Massey on the cover.

Look Eastwards (UK): August 1964

Local TV listings magazine for the Bristol area of England.

TV Times (Australia): August 1969

Nova Antenna Magazine (Portugal): 1969 

TV Week (Australia): September 27, 1969 

Featuring Peter as Jason King from Department S. The strange thing about this cover was that Department S was not due to start on South Australian screens until the following year, but was showing Victoria and New South Wales. Due to the bulk of the magazine being printed in Melbourne and then distributed to state agencies for listing inclusions, they had to take whatever cover was featured. No articles are inside relating to Peter or Department S. 

Flama (Portugal): January, 1970

Det Nye (Norway): March, 1970

. ‘Department S’ reaches the continent and Jason captures the imagination of Europeans everywhere, as seen here on the cover of this Norwegian weekly, Det Nye. Peter  became a regular in the magazine, appearing on an almost weekly basis, either in the form of an article or centre-page pin-up.

TV Times (UK): May 22, 1970.

As the popularity of ‘Department S’ and its central character, Jason King, continues to grow, Peter is afforded the front page of this issue of the TV Times, along with a two-page interview entitled, “Love, Peter Wyngarde and an Eastern promise”.

Televizier (Holland): 1970

Bild und Funk (West Germany): November 1970.

Aktuell (Norway): June 1970.

Norway’s most popular television magazine celebrates the arrival of Peter in Oslo. Surrounded by female bodyguards, all wearing Jason King T-Shirts, Peter goes out to meet some of the 20,000 fans who turned up to greet him in the Norwegian capital, and to visit a local hospital.

Na (Norway): June 1970

Featuring a four-page article on Peter’s visit to the capital, Oslo.

Bravo (West Germany): April 1971

Tele (West Germany): June 10, 1971.

Veronica (Holland): 8th December, 1971

Teenage magazine. Three page feature on Peter and Jason King.

TV Expres (Belgium): 1972

3-Page interview, accompanied by photographs from the Jason King series. 

Hor Zu (West Germany): July/August, 1971

Peter receives the star treatment with a three-page feature on the Department ‘S’ spin-off, Jason King.

Gong (West Germany): 1972

Det Nye (Norway): March 1972.

Once again Peter features on the cover of Norway’s ‘Det Nye’, along with his girlfriend, model Elisabeth Skjortekjole, both of whom are seen kissing at Peter’s luxury London apartment, and holding hands together on the South Bank of the River Thames.

Freizeit Revue (West Germany): 1972.

Two-page interview with photographs.

Petticoat (UK): April 1972

Gong (West Germany): May, 1973

Tros Kompass (Holland): 15-21 January, 1972

Kurier TV Magazine (Austria): 23rd September 1973

Where (South Africa): 1978

Flash Gordon Special Issue (USA): 1980

 Action TV (UK): 2000

Five page interview with Peter, and in-depth feature on Department S.

Famous Monsters (USA): September 2016 (issue No. 283)

The Darkside (UK): March 2017

The Chap (UK): Spring 2005

The Mirror (UK): 19th January, 2018

Infinity (UK): October 2020

Camera Obscura (USA): Issue No.23.

‘Peter Wyngarde Special’. Published in 1996 by the Birmingham branch of the Prisoner appreciation society, ‘Six of One’. Includes articles on actors who had appeared in both The Prisoner and Department S; transcript of Peter’s 1993 appearance on Pebble Mill; biography and analysis of Peter portrayal of No.2 in Checkmate.

SUB magazine (UK): Issue 14 – March 1994

Orange Alert (UK): Spring 2018

Official magazine of ‘Six of One’ – The Official Prisoner Appreciation Society

Please click below for newspaper and magazine articles – 1950’s to the present day

Produced by The Richmond Theatre Reparatory Company, London.

July 1950

Character: Clem

Act I

• Scene I: 10 pm on a Saturday evening in March
• Scene II: Three hours later

Act III

• The following evening about 7pm

Act III

• Four hours later

The Story

The year is 1950, a period when television had not yet supplanted the Wireless. The Jukebox, dancing at the Palais, and frequent visits to the Cinema served as popular entertainment for the public, and the Death Penalty was still applicable in cases of Murder.

Madam Tic-Tac (Margaret St. Barbe-West), is so-called due to her dual disabilities of blindness and deafness, which limit her communication to hand signals* Attributing her condition to carelessness In a hospital, and harbouring resentment towards the significant physical isolation it has imposed on, her.she attempts to get her own back on society by embarking upon a life of crime. Nevertheless, she displays extraordinary kindness to Beth – a young girl who, as well as working in the cafe, acts as her eyes and ears.

*A traditional form of sign language utilized by bookmakers at British racecourses until the early 21st Century.

The gang begin to draw the attention of a local police in the person of Detective Segreant Harris – especially when, during a raid, a night watchman is fatally shot by Clem (Peter Wyngarde), a manipulative and dangerous young man who serves as the gang’s second-in-command.

Things start to take a turn when taxi driver, Rudge (Leslie Yeo) – a timid man by nature but who is also a member of the gang, becomes unnerved by Clem’s actions, believing that committing murder is crossing a moral line. He decides that he is going to surrender to the authorities, thereby revealing the Tic-Tac Gang’s operations. On discovering Rudge’s intentions, Clem takes measures to eliminate him and to create an alibi for himself by framing Madam Tic-Tac’s son, Luke..

When she realizes the situation, Madam Tic-Tac immediately understands that she must safeguard her son whom, until this point, she has successfully kept away from her illicit dealings. Utilizing both her connections in the criminal underworld and her own cleverness, she manages to outsmart Clem and rescue her son, while all time understanding that she will ultimately be killed by him.

Above: Peter (second from left) as Clem

In Retrospect

Written by Falkland L. Cary and Philip Weathers and staged globally, this work is acknowledged as a thriller characterized by robust character development and dramatic intensity, distinguishing it within mid-20th-century theatre.

The narrative centers on themes of loyalty, deception, and the ethical dilemmas faced by the central character, Madam Tic-Tac. Her protective nature towards Luke and Beth, despite her own limitations, stands in stark contrast to the nefarious ambitions of Clem and the fear-motivated actions of Rudge. This creates a gripping, morally intricate storyline set against a backdrop of criminality which lies at the heart of both the suspense and the emotional depth of the play. The interactions among these characters propel the tension and lead to the tragic conclusion of the story.

Press Comments

“Admirably proving their acting talent are Peter Wyngarde, almost unrecognisable as the super spiv, Clem, and Leslie Yeo. as Rudge, the get-away driver.” The Richmond Herald – 29th July, 1950

Reviewing the increasing menace of AI-generated ‘documentaries’ on the ‘net

Since the late summer of 2022, there has been an unprecedented public discourse surrounding artificial intelligence and ethics. This shift occurred when a select few technology companies released the first proprietary text-to-image AI art generators to the public. For those who may not be aware, the expanding domain of AI art involves machine learning systems that are trained on extensive collections of text and visual data sourced from the Internet. When integrated with text-to-image technology, these systems enable users to articulate any scene using natural language to generate a multitude of stunning images based on these text prompts. Aside from the fact that AI has already integrated into daily life, the rapid development of specific technologies that empower individuals to produce visuals in mere seconds through text prompts has sparked a significant and contentious debate within the art community and creative sectors. Critics label it a threat to the livelihoods of human artists, while proponents celebrate it as the most groundbreaking advancement in visual media since the advent of photography. One of the most alarming facets of the various questionable applications of AI is the production of deepfakes and faux-documentaries. This hyper-realistic alternative representation prompts concerns regarding the integrity of future historical records, as seemingly “documentary” images can be fabricated in this manner. With the capability for anyone to create fictional historical documentaries with near-perfect precision, and considering the viral nature of image dissemination on the Internet, it is not difficult to conclude that, without robust critical media skills, it will become increasingly challenging for the general public, and even seasoned media professionals, to distinguish between reality and fabrication. In this context, we examine some of the troubling “documentaries” primarily emerging from the United States that focus on Peter, claiming to offer privileged insights into his life and career.

The visual material presented in the 50.13-minute documentary titled, ‘The Tragic Story of Alan Bates & Peter Wyngarde – The Gay Love Hollywood Destroyed’, appears to have been generated by artificial intelligence; a reality that has not escaped the attention of some viewers who have inadvertently encountered it. For example, to depict the well-known tale of Peter’s arrest in 1975, the image displayed below is presented on screen. The individual in the photograph resembles more of a detainee from Guantanamo Bay than a person apprehended at Gloucester Police Station.

Tut! Tut! Peter would never wear orange with handcuffs!

Presented below is the image; it’s uncertain who THIS person is supposed to be! It seems that the AI bot merely picked any image available online featuring a man with dark hair and a mustache to illustrate what Peter looked like for the casual observer. How disappointing!

Above: Any man with a moustache will do!

The creators of Hollywood Confidential assert the following: “During the Golden Age of Hollywood, being gay was not merely a private issue — it posed a significant threat to one’s career. Studios enforced a culture of silence. Relationships were erased from public view. Marriages were fabricated. Love was concealed behind legal agreements. Behind the glamorous facade, genuine relationships existed — shared homes, intertwined lives, and hidden secrets — all obscured to maintain the illusion of masculinity that America demanded. This serves as a historical account of the erasure of gay identities in classic cinema. For those seeking to comprehend Old Hollywood in its authentic form — rather than the facade it presented — this channel reveals the files that were intended to be destroyed. Hollywood Confidential — the gay history that Hollywood has denied.”

I would be keen to examine the “files” that these individuals claim to have uncovered to substantiate their assertions. As previously mentioned, they appear to have scoured the internet for any snippets of tabloid gossip and unverified online rumors, which are then presented as a thoroughly researched exposé. In truth, it is poorly constructed, entirely misleading, and painfully tedious in every regard. If it were a horse, one would hope that someone would show compassion and relieve it of its suffering!

While there will always be a small contingent of gullible individuals who will accept every word of this drivel, I would argue that no one possessing even a modicum of intelligence could be deceived by such sordid nonsense. Nevertheless, it is disheartening that the technology, which has become so widely accessible online, is being utilized to produce the kind of unrefined rubbish discussed herein.

They assert that they are guiding viewers on a nostalgic expedition to unveil rare narratives, unseen footage, iconic legends, vintage scandals, and the enduring allure of Hollywood’s history – particularly emphasizing the ‘scandal’ aspect. No long-deceased actor is spared from scrutiny. Among those whose reputations are tarnished are Richard Burton, Peter O’Toole, Sid James, Oliver Reed, Bill Maynard(!), Stewart Granger, and our own Peter Wyngarde.

They lure the inquisitive and the credulous to ‘hit that subscribe button and step back into a realm where style, drama, and artistry dominated the screen.’ Really? To anyone possessing a modicum of intelligence, this channel is simply a vehicle for tarnishing the names of deceased actors and actresses who can no longer defend themselves.

‘Pure Evil: 15 British Celebrities of the 70s Who Scandalized the World!’ is the title of the pseudo-documentary under scrutiny here, where, alongside notorious figures such as serial paedophiles Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris, our own Peter Wyngarde is alleged to have coerced, abused, and generally driven his fellow actors, producers, and directors to the brink of suicide! All of this, it is claimed, is ‘well-documented,’ yet since none of these ‘documents’ are ever presented, we are simply expected to take their word for it.

Unsurprisingly, all these claims are fabrications upon fabrications; concocted by an individual or individuals unknown, who are so utterly convinced of their assertions that they opt to conceal their identities behind a username and remain unreachable.

In stark contrast to the allegations made by those behind ‘Vintage Uncovered’, Peter was, in fact, highly esteemed within the acting community, with many of his peers and producers extolling his virtues – both as an actor and as a person. Here are just a few of the commendations about him:

“I always felt that any success the show (Department ‘S’) had was due in no small part to Peter’s ability and imagination He was a fabulous actor and a good pal.” Joel Fabiani – Co-Star, Department S “I remember working with Peter was always fun – he is such a stylish actor. He was a true gentleman..” Dame Diana Rigg – Actress “Working with Peter was a scream – he’s such a hoot!” Felicity Kendal – Actress “He was funny and quick and bright. I think the professionals are professionals, and he’s one of those. He hasn’t any inflated idea’s about himself. He’s completely unpompous, and I didn’t find him the least bit phoney.” David Bailey – Photographer “Peter was always a very courteous man, easy to work with, and who behaved off screen with the same suave sophistication that some of his on-screen roles demanded.” Dennis Spooner – Producer, Department S/Jason King “Peter Wyngarde played Langdale Pike – a Victorian Nigel Dempster in ‘The Three Gables’, which opened the 1994 season of ‘The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes’. As always, Peter was distinguished by his rapier wit and style. A memorable performance.” June Wyndham-Davis – Producer, ‘The Three Gables’

The creators of this abomination should hang their heads in shame, ‘tho somehow I doubt they ever will!

Although the host appears to be AI-generated, his objective is straightforward: “To resurrect these untold, or at the very least, significantly under-reported stories into the limelight. Illuminating the peculiar choices, public breakdowns, and unusual turns of events that influenced careers and solidified legacies – occasionally for entirely inappropriate reasons.”

“For every carefully curated success story,” he/it waffles on, “there are a dozen tales that defy belief. Moments of madness, miscalculation, and sheer, jaw-dropping audacity that somehow got lost in the shuffle of fame. This is where Weird Showbiz History” steps in. If it’s a tale that makes you gasp, cringe, or burst out laughing, it probably belongs on this channel.“

Once more, it is merely the same recycled drivel that has been circulated for decades, with the host, whoever that may be, contributing his own perspective. The individuals behind these channels lack any genuine understanding of Peter’s life, yet they continue to chatter as if they are presenting something novel and innovative.”

Dear viewers Umeed krta hn khy ap theek aur khairiat sy hn gy, Yeah mra YouTube veloging channel hy, Please ap tmam viewers sy request hy khy channel ko subscribe krain aur mujy support krain, Shukriya (Note – this has been copied verbatum).

Mr. Buzdar professes to have had privileged access to Peter’s bank account – insisting that the actor died in abject poverty. In fact, Peter lived in a Grade II listed building in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Earls Terrace, where he had lived since 1958 had, over the years, was home to the likes of Madonna, Sir Ian McKellern and J.K. Rowling. It boasted an Olympic-sized swimming pool and private gardens for the sole use of residents, and a private road with gatehouse. Hardly a residence for someone who was living hand to mouth.

Above: Mr. Buzdar we presume – the keeper of Peter’s financial accounts

I would suggest that Mr. Buzdar has never been within a 4,000 -mile radius of Peter and, as is usual with these content producers, had AI trawl the Internet for any scrap of tittle-tattle it could find, including gossip posted on forums and online encyclopedias, which is latterly spat out as fact – to their mind at least.

If you choose to indulge, remember, this is 10 minutes and 12 seconds of your life you’ll never get back!

“Welcome to Celebrity Secrets – where the golden past of legendary stars comes alive! Here, you won’t just relive their dazzling performances, iconic stories, and cherished memories… but you’ll also step into the dark side behind the spotlight.

We bring you rare images, hidden details, and secrets never revealed before: from private struggles and shocking scandals, to bizarre truths and outrageous moments the public never saw. This isn’t just memory—it’s a journey that will leave you stunned, moved, and speechless.”

According to this the makers of this 12-minute piece, Peter was so broke that he had to resort to driving a red Routemaster for London Transport! Dear God! I’ve heard many fabrications about him in my time, but this one not only takes the cake, but the plate and doyley as well!

For the record, Peter lived in a Grade II listed building in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, not in a crummy bedsit in Brixton! He worked continuously from the mid-1970’s onwards.

Oh, and by the way, did you know that Peter drove a Jaguar in both ‘Department S’ and ‘Jason King’? No, I didn’t either! Every day’s a school day!

Let us examine this so-called “carefully researched” documentary….

It asserts that Peter was not “destroyed” due to a decline in viewership for ‘Jason King’. Instead, it claims that the British public chose to “punish” him for being “gay”! Is that truly the case? Furthermore, were you aware that prior to the infamous and unfounded prosecution in 1975, Peter was regarded as television’s “most profitable illusion”? Shock! Horror! Probe!

We are also informed that Peter, in his youth, had constructed a narrative around himself that ultimately “became a cage”. And these individuals claim to know him well enough to arrive at this conclusion? I find that hard to believe! The documentary continues by stating that throughout his life, Peter refrained from discussing his experiences in Lungha Civil Assembly Camp, where he was imprisoned as a child. This assertion is entirely false, as he frequently spoke about his time there in various magazine and newspaper interviews. Apparently, the British audience was not interested in a “damaged refugee with a peculiar voice”; they preferred chiseled cheekbones and glamour.

The fact that they cannot even spell his name correctly (Wingard and, ahem, Winyard) speaks volumes about this low-quality nonsense. As expected, the tired old myth regarding Peter and Alan Bates being lovers is resurrected for yet another round (refer to Peter’s own writings that disprove this), along with the now-overturned conviction from 1975. They attempt to juxtapose Bates’ image—depicting him as a more rugged individual—with Peter’s “flamboyant” and “polished” persona. In reality, they are comparing Alan Bates the individual to Jason King, the character, rather than to Peter Wyngarde.

They imply that this ‘relationship’ concluded when Bates married in 1970. In truth, Bates had moved out of the apartment he shared with Peter (as is common among actors) in the mid-1960s, after having lived with the American actor Rock Hudson in California for several years.

At least the biography, ‘Peter Wyngarde: A Life Amongst Strangers’, was mentioned—albeit only as a screen grab from the publisher’s website to illustrate the malice of the British press. While it was at least a complete used in completely the wrong context.

Aren’t we just blessed to have these people who have probably never set foot in Britain, telling us what was what about our television heroes.

The person behind this claptrap clearly has both a fixation with, and an apparent hatred, of British actors based just on some of his/her other titles: ‘Died in Poverty’ and ‘Actors With Secret Diseases’.They’re obviously short of something to do!

Oh, and did you know that former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, was gay? Well, according to this he was. I wonder if his wife, Mary, was aware of that. In that case, I wonder if Harold was…?!

Conclusion

The most detrimental action that technology companies could have taken was to grant the general public access to Artificial Intelligence – particularly given the nature of some existing online content. Now, every individual, whether named Joe or Joanna, perceives themselves to a talented journalist or documentary filmmaker,but who neglect to conduct even the most basic research. They simply regurgitate what they or, more likely, their AI bot has unearthed from the obscure corners of the internet; be it someone’s random thoughts on a forum or a piece of outdated tabloid sensationalism that has been repeatedly exaggerated over time. Conversations in pubs have now transformed into podcasts and ‘documentaries’ that, alarmingly, are often accepted by the misled and impressionable as absolute truth, which is then shared with others. They seem incapable of understanding that these podcasts and ‘documentaries’ are created by individuals who possess no more knowledge than a clothes peg, often improvised in someone’s spare room! Generally, those who present such content prefer to remain anonymous—most likely because they are aware that their claims would not withstand scrutiny or challenge. Those who do provide an email address typically do not respond. Like the cartoon character Mr. Magoo, they wreak havoc and cause significant distress to those of us who actually knew the individuals they have chosen to disparage. They then ride off into the sunset without a second thought for the damage they’ve inflicted. Regrettably, there will always be individuals who will exploit their newfound influence to inflict harm. We have witnessed social media devolving into a toxic environment. AI merely serves as another instrument for those who wish to amplify their own voices.

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”.

Pace International

The two 38″x25″ posters of Peter published by Pace in 1970. Catalogue Numbers (Left) 114 and (Right) 115

Taken from the NME (New Musical Express) – July 1970. Pace posters by mail order

Adorning the changing room of a ladies boutique changing room, Circa 1970

*Woolies (Woolworths): was a British high street retail chain.

Sandecor Marketing

Above: 30in x 25in Sandecor, 1972. Catalogue No. 6030

For more on Peter Wyngarde posters…

Looking at the missing scenes and dialogue involving General Klytus that was changed between script and screen.

Above: In the prison cell where Flash is being held before his execution. An angle that we don’t see in the finished film.

Above: The purpose-built set at EMI-Elstree for the arrest of Princess Aura by Klytus on her return to Mingo City from Arboria.

ANGLE – THE ROCKET SHIP As the canopy opens and AURA climbs out, smiling to herself. She stops short, her expression changing as she sees something. KLYTUS appears in the foreground with THREE of his black-clad POLICE AGENTS. KLYTUS Good evening, Princess — did you have a good flight back from Arboria? (and to the Men) Seize her.

Aura’s rage and indignation explodes; she fights tooth and nail inflicting some breaking scratches. But the two experienced men quickly overpower her. One twist both arms behind her in a double half-nelson; the other grabs her kicking feet and pushes them together. AURA is lifted bodily and carried to a metal bench on the other side of the room. AURA is lowered onto this. Her ankles are strapped apart. Her head is lowered into a black velvet-lined hollow, and a hand snaps around her throat. Her hands are raised level with her head, and the wrists are secure tight. She looks like a sacrificial victim.

156A CU of BORE WORMS in JAR. They look like hairy caterpillars about 6 inches long. KLYTUS’S is finger appears against the glass. The nearest Worm tries to bite it. Against the glass we see a wide mouth with unhinged jaw,s so it can’t open 180 degrees. The teeth are like rows of tiny spikes. a little pointed red tongue tries to lap and thrust its way into the glass.

White Robes?

There was an idea, both during the writing of the script, and kept during filming, that whenever General Klytus and Princess Aura shared a scene, Klytus would wear white robes as opposed to black.

In the ‘Final Script’ of July 1979, Peter has written in pencil in the top right-hand corner of the page: ‘In black here? Or in black when behind people?. Clearly, no definite decision had been made at this point. Peter said latterly on the subject: “Originally had two costumes; a black and a virgin white version – the latter of which I was to wear in the scenes with Princess Aura. I felt, though, that the white one looked a bit like something that had been worn in a pantomime, so I decided to stick with the black one throughout the film.“

Above: From Peter’s copy of the script.

A photographs do exist of Peter wearing all white, which were taken during while shooting the scene involving Aura’s return to Mongo City and her subsequent arrest (see below). This was most probably the only time the white robes were worn.

Above : Peter as General Klytus in white robes with with Ornella Muti as Princess Aura.

Dialogue Changes: From script to screen

Peter was well known for changing his characters dialogue in scripts, more often than not for the better. Here are some of the improvements he made – from script to screen:

SCENE	SCRIPT	SCREEN
Inside the great hall where Flash, Dale and Zarkhov are brought before Ming, Vultan and Barin draw their weapons.	“Put up your weapons. Nobody dies in the palace but by the Emperor’s command”	“Set down your weapons. No one, but no one dies in the palace without a command from the Emperor.”
Scene as above. Vultan initially refuses to follow Kytus’s instruction .	There is no dialogue at all from Klytus at this point.	“Vultan! You obey or you sacrifice your daughter.”
In the prison cell where Flash is awaiting execution.	(To Flash): “You refused your final meal. The chef is very upset.”	“Yes, you don’t look well. I heard you refused your final meal. The chef will be upset.”
Same scene as above.	“You were wise, actually — the gas works more quickly on an empty stomach. Have you any final requests?”	“Just as well. Gas works more quickly on an empty stomach. Any final requests?”
Inside the laboratory where Klytus and Aura are removing all Zarkov’s memories. The two General’s are watching the screen, when Klytus sees Hitler.	There is no dialogue here.	“Now he showed promise!”
Scene as above. The procedure has been done.	(To Kala): “I will return after reporting to the Emperor.” (Seen holding Aura’s handkerchief).	“I’ll return.” (No handkerchief. He touches Kala’s chin).
Torture Chamber. Aura demands to see her father,	(Klytus touches a button to reveal Ming). No dialogue	“With pleasure.”
Klytus has arrived at the Hawkmen’s Sky City.	“Agent Zarkov, you will be liquidated for treachery. As for you, Prince Vultan, you will surrender these fugitives at once or the Imperial Fleet will blast your kingdom to atoms.”	“Agent Zarkov, you will be liquidated for treachery.
Scene as above. Barin insists that Klytus address him as “Prince Barin”. See below for page from original script	“No longer, I think. Princess Aura — under our persuasion — has implicated you of high treason. You are under arrest along with these Earthlings. A prison ship will be along shortly to take you away.”	“No longer. Princess Aura — under our persuasion — has implicated you of high treason. You are under arrest. A prison ship will be along shortly to take you away.”

Above: Page 84 (Scene 191). Changes to dialogue in Peter’s own hand.

Below: How Peter envisaged the character of General Klytus. Written by him inside the first draft of the script

Top: Klytus. He is electric electrically – verging on abysmal grandeur in his male violence. (Under Title): Klytus: is an accomplished murderer as he is a sorcerer. An animal in agony because of his intelligence; a wretch whose heart has cracked and whose sole obsession is revenge. His is the fury of hell, no less than of a woman scorned. Hate Incarnate; misery broken out of all control; loathing unleashed until, hurricane wise, he sweeps everything and everyone before it. He is blood and electricity mixed. His death: The dreadful, hoarse groans of a wounded animal. They well out of a half human body, there has been clubbed by fate. They are sounds that speak as no words could, for a soul torn by horror, for a mind numbed by what it has been forced to comprehend. The horror at his isolation from humanity.

Above is Peter’s copy of the Shooting Schedule dated 31st July, 1979 Starling Productions Limited ”Flash Gordon” MAIN UNIT SHOOTING SCHEDULE BASED ON FINAL SCRIPT DATED JULY 1979 Notes: (a) it is possible that 23rd August and 24th August will be switched to avoid an unnecessary move back to Shepperton whilst we are at Weybridge. (b) This Schedule excludes all 2nd unit work and blue backing at Weybridge and all miniature and optical effects shooting. (c) The 2nd unit will shoot all blue backing scenes as follows – 151, pt.152, pt.159, 160, 177, 195, pt.211, pt.212, pt.213, 217, 221, 223, 230, 233, 235, 237, 261. Also Sc 277. This work will commence from Monday 3rd September at Weybridge until completed. in addition to the scenes, the 2nd unit will pick up sequences which the main unit cannot complete. (d) A separate miniature optical effects schedule will be issued soonest.

More about Flash Gordon…