The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 07-03-2011, 08:16 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSENYC View Post
Palace spokespersons' claims that Brown and Blair, who are two of the world's most prominent (former) political leaders, weren't invited because they weren't Knights of the Garter are hogwash. Singers, deposed royalty from Serbia, etc. were all invited.

Vote yes to AV if you want to see Tories feel the fear again | Martin Kettle | Comment is free | The Guardian
I think to put any kind of political bias on a wedding, regardless of who the people are, is not the smartest thing to do. A wedding is a personal celebration of friends and families and making up the guest list is purely personal. We have to remember too that William and Kate's wedding was not a state wedding. Who was included and excluded were the personal preferences of those making up the guest list. Should it have been that Charles did block certain people from the portion of the guest list that he was responsible for, it was his own personal choice.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-03-2011, 08:41 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSENYC View Post
Palace spokespersons' claims that Brown and Blair, who are two of the world's most prominent (former) political leaders, weren't invited because they weren't Knights of the Garter are hogwash. Singers, deposed royalty from Serbia, etc. were all invited.

Vote yes to AV if you want to see Tories feel the fear again | Martin Kettle | Comment is free | The Guardian

I read this link and found no mention of palace spokepersons, let alone a claim by them. No mention of the KGs being invited. The article was a pro-Labour piece explaining why Labour is not longer feared by the right wing of politics and society - critical of Labour as well - typical type of stuff from the Guardian.

I did read that the view that Charles blocked them was the authors own and not anything official at all. This is what this link says about the invitations and the rest is about the state of the Labour party.

Of course it is a snub. Of course it is deliberate. Not inviting Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to the royal wedding, while inviting Lady Thatcher and Sir John Major, is a cold, calculated act of high establishment spite against Labour. The failure to correct it – especially when the invitation to the official representative of the Syrian tyranny was so speedily withdrawn – only confirms the miserable, petty, ill-advised disdainful nastiness of the original deed. And I blame Prince Charles. His reactionary fingerprints are all over the wedding's programme of events. This wasn't William's wish, they say.
What's more, it all matters. But not because a royal wedding invitation is itself important. It matters because the snub is a symptom of renewed establishment confidence. British royalty's enduring historic hostility to Labour – a hostility that has very rarely been reciprocated, it should be pointed out – is unsurprising, even today. But the snub might not have been so confidently and publicly delivered without the more general sense, which stretches far beyond the snobbish ghastliness of Clarence House, that it is now absolutely fine and dandy for a public person to parade outright contempt for the Blair and Brown Labour governments.
Prince Charles is not the first or indeed the most important person to allow his judgment to be carried away by the mood of anti-Labour dismissal. David Cameron himself gave way to it only a week ago, when he foolishly permitted himself to use a radio interview to wave aside Brown's passionate desire to become the next head of the International Monetary Fund.

According to David Starkey - the historian it was William who vetoed Blair not Charles Prince William vetoed Tony Blair's wedding invite due to 'powerful dislike,' says historian | News.com.au because of the way Blair behaved at the time of Diana's death as well as things Blair wrote in his memoirs about private conversations with William.

The Windsor Knot - Wedding invite list contains serious political snubs According to Nick Lougran, a spokesperson for William 'there is no protocal reason to invite former prime ministers' because the wedding wasn't a state occasion. Lougran also confirms that Major and Thatcher were invited because they were KGs although Thatcher declined and Major had the added position of being one of the trustees of the money William inherited from his mothe's estate. The editor-in-chief of Burke's Peerage also agrees - there was no protocol reason to invite them and it was William - not Charles' - decision. This article goes on to suggest that the Labour Party were blaming David Cameron to a certain extent. It seems that William can't stand Blair and that is the reason he wasn't invited.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-03-2011, 08:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I read this link and found no mention of palace spokepersons, let alone a claim by them. No mention of the KGs being invited. The article was a pro-Labour piece explaining why Labour is not longer feared by the right wing of politics and society - critical of Labour as well - typical type of stuff from the Guardian.

I did read that the view that Charles blocked them was the authors own and not anything official at all. This is what this link says about the invitations and the rest is about the state of the Labour party.

Of course it is a snub. Of course it is deliberate. Not inviting Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to the royal wedding, while inviting Lady Thatcher and Sir John Major, is a cold, calculated act of high establishment spite against Labour. The failure to correct it – especially when the invitation to the official representative of the Syrian tyranny was so speedily withdrawn – only confirms the miserable, petty, ill-advised disdainful nastiness of the original deed. And I blame Prince Charles. His reactionary fingerprints are all over the wedding's programme of events. This wasn't William's wish, they say.
What's more, it all matters. But not because a royal wedding invitation is itself important. It matters because the snub is a symptom of renewed establishment confidence. British royalty's enduring historic hostility to Labour – a hostility that has very rarely been reciprocated, it should be pointed out – is unsurprising, even today. But the snub might not have been so confidently and publicly delivered without the more general sense, which stretches far beyond the snobbish ghastliness of Clarence House, that it is now absolutely fine and dandy for a public person to parade outright contempt for the Blair and Brown Labour governments.
Prince Charles is not the first or indeed the most important person to allow his judgment to be carried away by the mood of anti-Labour dismissal. David Cameron himself gave way to it only a week ago, when he foolishly permitted himself to use a radio interview to wave aside Brown's passionate desire to become the next head of the International Monetary Fund.
I cannot comment on the above, but it sounds spot on. A wedding is a private affair, if the price tag is paid, exclusively, by the family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-03-2011, 10:35 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,358
Ok again, there is no evidence that Charles was involved with the decision not to invite TB except the opinions of a journalist. So why blame Charles instead of William?
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-03-2011, 10:39 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,270
I think that Tony Blair said something about Diana, something to the effect that she was like him--able to size up a person and manipulate him/her. Here's a link that I found. It's just not right for a politician to talk about dealings with a member of the Royal Family, which Diana was in association if not in law.


Tony Blair told Princess Diana her relationship with Dodi Fayed was a problem | Politics | guardian.co.uk




Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
I heard that William himself didn't want Tony Blair invited. It was not a state occasion or something like that. It wasn't the kind of wedding where every famous politician in England had to be invited. I recall reading that William himself didn't invite Tony Blair because of something he wrote in a book.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-03-2011, 11:04 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Ok again, there is no evidence that Charles was involved with the decision not to invite TB except the opinions of a journalist. So why blame Charles instead of William?

Because William is Diana's son and Charles made her unhappy so anything negative relating to William has to be that he is being manipulated by Charles and/or Camilla whereas William has an almost permanent 'get out of gaol free card'.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-03-2011, 11:46 PM
NotHRH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Because William is Diana's son and Charles made her unhappy so anything negative relating to William has to be that he is being manipulated by Charles and/or Camilla whereas William has an almost permanent 'get out of gaol free card'.

With that stated, it is all water under the bridge. It matters not because past occurences can never be undone.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-04-2011, 12:23 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
With that stated, it is all water under the bridge. It matters not because past occurences can never be undone.
Iluvbertie was answering someone's question as to why Charles would be readily 'blamed' for a perceived 'misdeed' and not William, when it was even more likely that it was William. Just saying what the context was for the comment.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-04-2011, 12:41 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Ok again, there is no evidence that Charles was involved with the decision not to invite TB except the opinions of a journalist. So why blame Charles instead of William?
IIRC when planning the wedding, Charles and Camilla had a certain number of people that they could include along with HM and the DoE and Carole and Michael Middleton with the majority of guests decided on by William and Kate themselves. My point was basically that whomever was chosen to be on the guest list for the wedding would be for personal reasons only and have absolutely nothing to do with politics or political parties.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-04-2011, 01:37 PM
Nico's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,351
Unusual statement from Clarence House concerning the POW meeting ministers :

The Prince of Wales - Statement by Clarence House in response to media reports about The Prince of Wales meeting Government Ministers
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-04-2011, 02:53 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
Interesting

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I think that Tony Blair said something about Diana, something to the effect that she was like him--able to size up a person and manipulate him/her. Here's a link that I found. It's just not right for a politician to talk about dealings with a member of the Royal Family, which Diana was in association if not in law.


Tony Blair told Princess Diana her relationship with Dodi Fayed was a problem | Politics | guardian.co.uk

I can see why William would not want Blair at his wedding. Shocking that a prime minister would comments on a private individual's romantic relationship and dismiss her as being "willful" for not liking what he said. Very odd.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-04-2011, 03:22 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA, United States
Posts: 1,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by fascinator View Post
I can see why William would not want Blair at his wedding. Shocking that a prime minister would comments on a private individual's romantic relationship and dismiss her as being "willful" for not liking what he said. Very odd.
I don't think its shocking - and all-in-all its a pretty insightful observation. I can certainly relate to it. There are times - even at my age - when my response to someone ceases to be reasonable and conversational and becomes 'wilful'. They can tell, too - and when that happens 'friendly conversation' and a benign exchange of opinion is out the window.

Blair was giving an insight - I don't think he was doing a 'payback' - that would be odd. Its possible Diana did things even in the face of her better judgment solely because she was pushing against what she fancied she was being 'told' to do. Did she continue with Dodi because of her conversation with Blair - does that weigh on Blair's conscience? Was that what he was considering? Important insight, showing how difficult it was to reason with her - and perhaps too close to the bone for some who knew her? If William refrained from inviting Blair based on this alone (and we don't know that - or do we?) then it gives an insight into William.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
Good to know - and I'm glad to see that they did not allow the insinuation of impropriety to stand.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-04-2011, 03:30 PM
olebabs's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Århus, Denmark
Posts: 283
I suspect there could be a number of reasons why William did not want Blair at his wedding. It could very well be out of curtesy to his grandmother.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-04-2011, 03:43 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
I think I can speak confidently for a majority of my fellow countrymen when I say that if anything Charles did made things even a smidgeon more difficult for the disgraceful Blair and Campbell he can do whatever the heck he wants!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-04-2011, 03:50 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,358
For what was posted about what Tony said about Diana, I have to say I tend to agree with it. I do think William was the one to not invite Tony; but I do think it was rather petty of him.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-04-2011, 04:37 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,247
Prince William's views of Tony Blair, whatever they may be speculated to be, are not relevant to this topic.

wbenson
British Forums Moderator
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-05-2011, 05:38 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
Tony Blair has come out and said that his dealings with Charles were appropriate:

Letters: Blair and the Prince | UK news | The Guardian

I want to make it clear that I always found my discussions and correspondence with Prince Charles immensely helpful. I thought he had a perfect right to raise questions and did so in a way that was both informative and insightful.

So CH and now Blair have both said what many people realise - that Charles has a perfect right to talk to ministers and does so in an appropriate manner.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-05-2011, 06:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
Charles (and later, William) need to be as au fait as possible on current affairs and a host of other matters.

Without thorough briefings, how can anyone expect HM and the two HRH discharge their duty ?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-12-2012, 11:00 AM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,323
Seven government departments launch last-ditch legal attempt to block disclosure of portions of prince's 'black spider memos':
Prince Charles letters: bid to keep parts of missives to ministers secret | UK news | guardian.co.uk
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-16-2012, 09:49 AM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,323
Peter Hunt‏@BBCPeterHunt
The Attorney General has blocked the release of private letters Prince Charles sent to 7 gov depts.

Peter Hunt‏@BBCPeterHunt
Attorney General calls Charles letters to gov "an exceptional case".

According to A-G, the Charles letters to gov were part of "The Prince of Wales' preparation for kingship".

Peter Hunt‏@BBCPeterHunt
Acc to A-G, without confidentiality Charles and ministers will "feel seriously inhibited from exchanging views candidly and frankly".

Acc to A-G, Charles letters "in many cases particularly frank.....There is nothing improper in the nature or content of the letters"
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
politics, prince charles, prince of wales


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:03 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]