The Queen and Her Prime Ministers

[sara1981]

i agree with wymanda!

i really like her articles what're talking about it! but Prince William is second to the throne and Prince Harry is thrid to the throne what wymanda says.

before Princess Diana's death Prime Minister's children visit Prince William and Harry at Diana's house in Kensington Palace i read Diana's books or on articles by the computer but Diana like to share with her boys with PM's sons with Future King of England and Prince Harry that really interest of Princess Diana oh boy for me!

Sara Boyce

[Martine]

Maybe Blair is overreacting but i can also see his point of view...it must not be easy to grow up with Blair as your father...I recently heard that Kathryn tried to commit suicide earlier this year because of the pressure...

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by Martine

Maybe Blair is overreacting but i can also see his point of view...it must not be easy to grow up with Blair as your father...I recently heard that Kathryn tried to commit suicide earlier this year because of the pressure...

That is really sad to hear.

It's unfortunate that initially her parents (particularly her father) used her and her siblings for political gain and now that the attention and interest from the media is building on them and obviously putting some pressure on them, her parents are trying to get the media to back off -- when it was clearly them who their children in the position in the first place.

I really don't have any respect for parents who put their children in the spotlight to get them attention, whether it is for political reasons or otherwise. If parents are running for public office or building a career in entertainment, that is a choice they've made as adults. There is no need to put their children in the spotlight, too. Children who are too young to know better or who have not made the decision for such media attention.

As in the case of Kathryn, obviously the experience has been an excrutiating one for her that would compel her to take such a desperate and drastic action.

[grecka]

Blair and his family should get equal, if not better protection, as the royal family. The fact is that the prime minister is far more vital to daily affairs and is a much larger target than a queen who has no power and her teenage grandchildren who have no power. Blair's well-being is much more important to the daily lives of the British people than the Royal Family, who are simply ceremonial in nature, and, while I certainly understand they deserve protection, it's much more pragmatic to protect the prime minister and his family than to protect people who have really nothing to do with the affairs of the British government.

[Elspeth]

If Tony Blair wants his children to be private, he should take the lead and keep their doing private himself. Once he starts using their images in ways he thinks is favourable to him, he's lost the moral high ground when the press also starts in on them.

[Elspeth]

Do you have reason to believe that Tony Blair and his family don't get such protection? The point we're discussing at the moment is intrusion by the press rather than physical safety; Blair seems to have used his children as publicity tools when it suited him and then complained when the press started negative as well as positive reporting. He should have realised that that sort of stuff was going to backfire, with the example of Princess Diana right there to learn from.

[Julian]

I certainly don't think anyone deserves to have their child commit suicide just because the pressures of having a parent in public office become overwhelming. That's taking one's dislike of someone way too far. In any event, he's headed straight for a third term and that's the bottom line. Personally I was shocked that the Labour Party conference didn't reprimand or take him more to task over Iraq and WMD etc. People are terrified and not using their senses -- same reason that Howard is leading in Oz upcoming poll, same reason that Bush is leading in the U.S. upcoming poll.

Actually, as far as his relationship with the Queen, he keeps it correct on the surface but there are things in his second term that were needless like the abolishing of the Lord Chancellor's office. The Queen liked PM's like Churchill, Wilson and Callaghan better than Mrs. T. whom she is said to have never understood. As to Blair, who knows what her perceptions are because those never become entirely clear until years after the PM concerned has left office.

[wymanda]

From what I've heard Blair has zero to no chance of a third term. Freinds & relatives of mine who live in Labor orientated areas have said that the tide has really turned against him. In fact, the main comment I hear about Blair is that he should stop trying to be "King of the World" and deal with the problems at home.

[grecka]

First of all, I was under the misapprehension that we were talking about physical protection, so, stupid me. As for the whole Labour thing, I really don't think there's a feasible opposition to Blair. The Conservatives, under Howard, have become more liberal even than Mr. Blair and have lost much of their base. Aside from that, they really have no strength of personality or charisma, which Mr. Blair has much of. Let's face it, Howard is John Major post-dated 10 years. As for the Liberal-Democrats, there is no chance whatsoever of Charles Kennedy getting any vote of confidence. He's got about the chance of my cat of being elected Prime Minister. So, really, in the absence of any real successor, Mr. Blair will likely prevail.

[Elspeth]

First of all, I was under the misapprehension that we were talking about physical protection, so, stupid me.

No problem. Sorry for being rather sharp; I'm battling a brutal cold and am rather sleep-deprived and short-tempered at the moment.



<mod hat on>General observation: Before this conversation wanders too far off topic into purely political areas, could we maybe bring it back to the subject of the relationship between HM and the PM? Thanks.</mod>

[Julian]

grecka, while I agree with you that there's no feasible alternative to Blair, I don't think you can call Howard more "liberal" than Blair. How so? In fact it was the Tory vote that Blair depended on for the most part to go into Iraq. I don't think HOward truly regrets that. If he was PM tomorrow he'd be a bigger running dog to Bush than Blair's ever managed to be not only about Iraq and terrorism but every single other international issue. I was all for Blair before and when he came into office, now like many I feel he is the worst thing possible and has totally betrayed the country and the values I falsely assumed he might stand for. But, the party machine is his and he knows how to manipulate it. What does the Queen think? Well, she can't voice opinions contrary to government policy.

[wymanda]

The fact that any political leader would use their children to gain votes really concerns me. Some years ago Australia had a Prime Minister with a young family and he & his wife made the decision to leave their children in their own home in the care of their grandparents. The children were kept right out of the public eye during their fathers term in office. The separation from their parents doesn't seem to have done them any harm, the son is actor Julian McMahon!

I feel sorry for the children of younger men who put themselves into political leadership roles. The childhood of these young people is lost through the intrusive media attention. The onus is on the parents to protect them and not to exploit them for political gain.

[Genevieve]

Interesting little tid bit about Julian McMahon (Nip/Tuck). I never knew that he had parents of such political roots/background -- which goes to prove your point I guess!

What I don't care for about the Blairs (among other things) is that when Tony Blair was initially campaigning for public office of 10 Downing Street it was apparently okay to put his (then) 3 children in the spotlight in order to promote/enhance his image. Tony and Cherie Blair courted the media attention on behalf of their children at that time. But now that his children are (unfortunately) suffering from the public attention he is suddenly going to slam the media and demand increased protection for them. He can't use his children one moment and reneg the next moment.

Whenever anyone chooses to enter public office, they are presumably adults and have chosen such a public life and with it the scrutiny for their decisions and actions. But their children have made no such decision or choice and shouldn't be thrust into the spotlight because of the choices their parent(s) have made.

I don't really think the Blair children are more at risk than William or Harry or anyone else for that matter because of terrorism. The unfortunate truth about terrorism is that it can affect anyone at anytime -- whether you are the son of a prince, the daughter of a prime minister, the daughter of a doctor or the son of a Starbucks server. Their father made certain political decisions that put not only his own children at risk but everybody's children at risk. How come Jane Smith down the road isn't asking for increased protection for her children? Don't her children deserve it more since her children likely attend a public school with minimal to non-existent security rather than the elite, private school the Blair children attend?

The Queen may have all the protection she needs but that is not accounting for the protection of her children and her grandchildren.The Queen having a certain level of protection does not necessarily equate with the fact that William and Harry or Beatrice and Eugenie or Zara and Peter Phillips have the same level of protection. Just as Tony Blair having a certain level of protection does not mean that his children have the same amount.

[Julian]

First of all, the person down the street and their kids are not the Blairs, or we would be talking about them and not the Blairs.

Secondly, William and Harry and the rest of em have all the protection that can be given them under the circumstances. But if they have no protection or insufficient protection, that is the fault of their grandmother whose job it is to see to that.

The original question wasn't about whose got protection, nor whether Blair ever exploited his kids. If he did, then I for one do not think he did so any more than other politicians do nowadays. Personally, I don't think people should have to make an either/or choice about their kids. Imagine dumping off your kids somewhere for 15 years (3 x terms of PM) just because you want to "protect" them? Sounds more to me like you can't be bothered to make any time for them and you found a convenient excuse for child neglect. The Blairs no matter what else have a perfect human right to keep their family unit as intact as they can manage.

As to whether Blair is one of the worst PMs I would say yes, but obviously for completely different reasons than the original poster and others who have posted since think. You want more of the same in Iraq (Oz has just proved it), which is what the two Howards and others would gladly do being Bush's even bigger poodles, I don't.

[Georgia]

While I believe Tony Blair has done some good things since he came to power the complete disrespect he shows to HM is unforgivable. He has to remember that he was just a baby when the Queen came to the throne. Her experience is second to none. The PM doesn't have an advisor that has experienced first hand all the HM has and instead of giving her her place and seeking her counsel he ignores her advice and expertise.

[Reina]

I am an American and so maybe I don't have the right to say this, but I love Tony Blair. You guys are so unappreciative of what you have. And think of the alternatives-the conservatives? They are as old and crusty as uuhh some of those buildings. and maybe he does things w/o consulting the queen, but he is still respectful of her and the institution. and I feel so sorry for their kids. They should absolutely get equal protection. Hello! The guy is running the country! And I am sorry, but why should he get the Queen's advice every week? Maybe once a month. But he and his govt. are dealing w/ some serious stuff. He hasn't have time for that.

[A.C.C.]

Originally Posted by Reina

I am an American and so maybe I don't have the right to say this, but I love Tony Blair. You guys are so unappreciative of what you have. And think of the alternatives-the conservatives? They are as old and crusty as uuhh some of those buildings. and maybe he does things w/o consulting the queen, but he is still respectful of her and the institution. and I feel so sorry for their kids. They should absolutely get equal protection. Hello! The guy is running the country! And I am sorry, but why should he get the Queen's advice every week? Maybe once a month. But he and his govt. are dealing w/ some serious stuff. He hasn't have time for that.

What do you mean he hasn't time for that. It is The Queen's constitutional right as monarch to be consulted. Every one of Her other 9 prime ministers seemed to have had time, yet Blair doesn't, please. Furthermore, if Blair was smart, he would consult The Queen, especially on constitutional issues like reformation of the House of Lords and such. She has been in that position as Queen for over 52 yrs. He wasn't even born when HM came to the throne, yet he knows more than She does. He may run the government, but that doesn't mean that The Queen, as monarch, does not have the right to know what is going on in the government. And the reason Blair's children don't get the same treatment as the Royal children is because they are not public figures and will not be public figures. The royal children are public figures and will be for life. They shouldn't get the same treatment because they are not in the same position.

[Reina]

Look at this time it should not be about position it should be about safety. and why can't the Queen get some separate powers so she can rule on that reformation of the House of Lords and such. I mean come on screw the position stuff for a while when it pertains to innocent kids of the P.M. Geeeeezzzz
And if the Queen wants to know what is going on in the govt. she should watch Question Time. It is a great show to watch
OK that was mean. But I am not saying that he should never see her. I think he should see her once a month maybe twice a month.
I am telling you that he has way bigger issues to deal w/!

[timtonruben359]

The relationship between the Queen and Mrs. Thatcher was very formal. The Queen, as it's well documented, was not at all fond of Thatcher's policies and her attitude towards Commonwealth affairs. Thatcher was a devoted Monarchist, but I don't think she was overly fond of the Queen. Some have suggested that Thatcher was jealous of the fact that the Queen always took precedence over her, but I personally don't think that's true.

I think it's more of the fact that their were from two very different worlds and found it very hard to understand each other. The Queen is suspected to much more liberal in her political views while Thatcher was a "blue Tory" to her core and I think the Queen was very concerned over Thatcher's extreme conservative social views.

[Elspeth]

The Prince of Wales spent a fair bit of time being openly critical of government policy in the 1980s, which the Queen was unable to do, but Mrs Thatcher's attitude toward the Commonwealth must have been a problem for the Queen (and probably vice versa). Things don't seem to have improved much, though, with Tony Blair increasingly behaving as though the monarchy is a total irrelevance and Diana was the only worthwhile royal.

I agree with the suggestion to read Ben Pimlott's biography of the Queen for a good account of her relationships with her senior politicians and the constitutional side of her position.