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...
The Queen and Her Prime Ministers
- Thread starter HMQueenElizabethII
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
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.
Alexandria
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,207
- Country
- Canada
That is really sad to hear.Martine said:
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.
Blair should have better protection
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Royal Highness
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Messages
- 1,557
- City
- Perth
- Country
- Australia
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.
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.
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>
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.
I agree. I know this topic is about The Queen's relationship to Blair, but the Blairs honestly don't think that their children are on the same level as the royal children do they. William and Harry, and Beatrice and Eugenie to a lesser extent, are worldwide celebrities known everywhere. I don't even know the Blair's children's names and I definitely wouldn't recognize them walking down the street. This, of course, is just me, but I doubt the press will forgo a story about William and his girlfrined to talk about Tony Blair's son and a girl he is spotted with. Come on, who is who here. Once Blair is out, his children wont even be in the press, they hardly are now. This is of course no offense to them, but William especially, and Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie will be royal and in the spotlight the rest of their lives.Alexandria said:
On security, I think the Royal Security is more urgent than Blairs. I say this because the Royals are much more high profile. Buckingham Palace is one of, if not the most recognizable residence in the world, it is the country's favorite building (this info was put out by a poll this week). If something happens to the royals, I think it would have a much bigger affect on the public and their feelings than if something happened to Blair. I agree that government wise, Blair is much more important, but the question is, would a terrorist rather target The Queen, who is Queen of so many countries, represents the Church of England, is Head of the Commonwealth, and a person who is a respected worldwide icon, or would they target Blair, a controvesial head of government. The Queen and the royal family are much more of a terrorist target than Blair and his family simply because they are 50 times more famous and recognizable worldwide. I am not, however, saying that Blair is not a target and needs no protection.
I doubt Princess Michael's kids need protection or that anyone outside royal watching circles much even recognises their faces, so what's the relevance of citing them? Blair's kids are of more passing concern at the moment because it was Blair who made the political decision to go into Iraq. It's also been said innumerable times that the highest target country for terrorism's next big incident is the U.K. I thought that was rather obvious. It's got nothing to do with being on the same "level" as William and Harry and everything to do with who would be a target for terrorism. The Queen already has all the protection she needs. Political leaders and their families in these times are a different matter. The world has changed you know!!
wymanda
Royal Highness
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Messages
- 1,557
- City
- Perth
- Country
- Australia
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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 said:
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/!
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/!
BeatrixFan
Majesty , Royal Blogger, TRF Author
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2005
- Messages
- 6,861
- City
- London
- Country
- United Kingdom
The Queen and her Prime Ministers
After a fascinating chat about the Queen and her PMs, I thought a topic was in order. Here are the PMs of the Her Majesty's reign and what they appeared to believe about the monarchy;
Sir Winston Churchill KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC
Prime Minister from 1940-1945 and 1951-1955
Conservative and Unionist
A staunch supporter of the monarchy, Sir Winston had been devout in his support of King Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson. His allegiance to the monarchy was unwaivering and he was said to be devastated by the death of King George VI. His relationship with the Queen was very strong and he once complained to his private doctor that he was facing sleepless nights whilst she was away on tour. The Queen thought so much of him that not only did she attend his funeral in 1965, but she gave a rare TV interview as a tribute to him.
Sir Anthony Eden KG, MC, PC, 1st Earl of Avon
Prime Minister from 1955-1957
Conservative and Unionist
Anthony Eden was appointed Prime Minister by the Queen in 1955 and immediately called a General Election. His premiership was brief but his relationship with the Queen was apparantly good and he was a monarchist. He died in 1977, the year of Her Majesty's Silver Jubilee. The Queen was apparantly unhappy with the way he handled Suez but then again, who wasn't?
Harold Macmillan OM, PC, 1st Earl of Stockton
Prime Minister from 1957-1963
Conservative and Unionist
Macmillan was an old Etonian and in an interview given before his death, said that he was a supporter of the Queen and her role. The Profumo Affair did him no favours but it was eventually a mess-up by doctors that led to his resignation. They told him he had fatal cancer and would be dead within a few months. He actually lived until 1986. His resignation put the Queen in a terrible predicament as she had to choose his successor. She took Macmillan's advice and appointed Sir Alec Douglas-Home much to the fury of Rab Butler. It had put the Queen in such a bad position that the Conservatives changed their leadership election process shortly after.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home KT, PC, Baron Home of the Hirsel
Prime Minister from 1963-1964
Conservative and Unionist
He was the last PM to be chosen by the British monarch directly and as a result was grateful to the Queen. As he stayed in office for just 1 year, it's unknown what his views on the monarchy were.
Sir Harold Wilson KG, OBE, FRS, PC, Baron Wilson of Rievaulx
Prime Minister from 1964-1970, 1974-1976
Labour
His relationship with the Queen was apparantly good although Barbara Castle often said that she believed the Queen was worried about the position of the monarchy under socialists. Wilson was quite supportive of the Queen and in an interview called her "a great treasure of the British people". He was constantly paranoid and believed he was going to be toppled in a coup by the establishment. There were rumours that the Queen Mother had been approached to convince the Queen to take absolute power and that Lord Mountbatten was preparing an army force to seize Downing Street and that he had the Queen's support. The Queen is said to have been deeply unhappy with his abuse of the Honours System after the "Lavender List" appeared but no evidence exists that plans for such a coup existed.
Sir Edward Heath, KG MBE
Prime Minister from 1970-1974
Conservative and Unionist
His predecessor was also his successor. He admired the Queen greatly and came to rely on their weekly meetings. Eventually he was brought down by a group who wanted Margaret Thatcher to be his replacement. She was successful in replacing Heath and he never forgave her. His relationship with the Queen was said to be "healthy".
Sir James Callaghan KG, PC, Baron Callaghan of Cardiff
Prime Minister from 1976-1979
Labour
Not Prime Minister for very long but during his premiership, he had the role of organising the Queen's Silver Jubilee. He was apparantly thrilled by the honour and even suggested that the gift from the Cabinet be a portrait of himself. He was a monarchist.
Lady Margaret Thatcher LG, OM, FRS, PC, Baroness Thatcher of Kevesten
Prime Minister from 1979-1990
Conservative and Unionist
The Queen's longest serving and first (and to date) only female Prime Minister. Being the same age as the Queen, there was an expectation that the two women wouldn't get on but apparantly their relationship grew closer as the years went by. Lady Thatcher is said to have upset the Queen a few times, most notably over the Fagin break-in and Thatcher's blocking of the Queen's attendance at a Commonwealth meeting. Despite this, Margaret Thatcher has written glowing tributes to the Queen in her books and is a staunch monarchist. The Queen attended Margaret Thatcher's 80th birthday party in 2006, as did the Duke of Edinburgh and Princess Alexandra of Kent.
Sir John Major, KG, CH, PC
Prime Minister from 1990-1997
Conservative and Unionist
He inherited a slightly poisoned chalice but his relationship with the Queen didn't seem to suffer. She recently made him a Knight of the Garter. Though the Queen apparantly knew of his affair with Edwina Currie, she always remained amiable to him and his premiership seemed to be monarchy-friendly.
Tony Blair
Prime Minister from 1997-2007
Labour
He'll leave soon.
--------------------
So, what do you make of the Queen's relationship with her Prime Ministers? Who has the Queen got on well with and how should a Prime Minister treat the monarch? Your views please on the Queen and her Prime Ministers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Privy_Council_for_Canada
After a fascinating chat about the Queen and her PMs, I thought a topic was in order. Here are the PMs of the Her Majesty's reign and what they appeared to believe about the monarchy;
Sir Winston Churchill KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC
Prime Minister from 1940-1945 and 1951-1955
Conservative and Unionist
A staunch supporter of the monarchy, Sir Winston had been devout in his support of King Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson. His allegiance to the monarchy was unwaivering and he was said to be devastated by the death of King George VI. His relationship with the Queen was very strong and he once complained to his private doctor that he was facing sleepless nights whilst she was away on tour. The Queen thought so much of him that not only did she attend his funeral in 1965, but she gave a rare TV interview as a tribute to him.
Sir Anthony Eden KG, MC, PC, 1st Earl of Avon
Prime Minister from 1955-1957
Conservative and Unionist
Anthony Eden was appointed Prime Minister by the Queen in 1955 and immediately called a General Election. His premiership was brief but his relationship with the Queen was apparantly good and he was a monarchist. He died in 1977, the year of Her Majesty's Silver Jubilee. The Queen was apparantly unhappy with the way he handled Suez but then again, who wasn't?
Harold Macmillan OM, PC, 1st Earl of Stockton
Prime Minister from 1957-1963
Conservative and Unionist
Macmillan was an old Etonian and in an interview given before his death, said that he was a supporter of the Queen and her role. The Profumo Affair did him no favours but it was eventually a mess-up by doctors that led to his resignation. They told him he had fatal cancer and would be dead within a few months. He actually lived until 1986. His resignation put the Queen in a terrible predicament as she had to choose his successor. She took Macmillan's advice and appointed Sir Alec Douglas-Home much to the fury of Rab Butler. It had put the Queen in such a bad position that the Conservatives changed their leadership election process shortly after.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home KT, PC, Baron Home of the Hirsel
Prime Minister from 1963-1964
Conservative and Unionist
He was the last PM to be chosen by the British monarch directly and as a result was grateful to the Queen. As he stayed in office for just 1 year, it's unknown what his views on the monarchy were.
Sir Harold Wilson KG, OBE, FRS, PC, Baron Wilson of Rievaulx
Prime Minister from 1964-1970, 1974-1976
Labour
His relationship with the Queen was apparantly good although Barbara Castle often said that she believed the Queen was worried about the position of the monarchy under socialists. Wilson was quite supportive of the Queen and in an interview called her "a great treasure of the British people". He was constantly paranoid and believed he was going to be toppled in a coup by the establishment. There were rumours that the Queen Mother had been approached to convince the Queen to take absolute power and that Lord Mountbatten was preparing an army force to seize Downing Street and that he had the Queen's support. The Queen is said to have been deeply unhappy with his abuse of the Honours System after the "Lavender List" appeared but no evidence exists that plans for such a coup existed.
Sir Edward Heath, KG MBE
Prime Minister from 1970-1974
Conservative and Unionist
His predecessor was also his successor. He admired the Queen greatly and came to rely on their weekly meetings. Eventually he was brought down by a group who wanted Margaret Thatcher to be his replacement. She was successful in replacing Heath and he never forgave her. His relationship with the Queen was said to be "healthy".
Sir James Callaghan KG, PC, Baron Callaghan of Cardiff
Prime Minister from 1976-1979
Labour
Not Prime Minister for very long but during his premiership, he had the role of organising the Queen's Silver Jubilee. He was apparantly thrilled by the honour and even suggested that the gift from the Cabinet be a portrait of himself. He was a monarchist.
Lady Margaret Thatcher LG, OM, FRS, PC, Baroness Thatcher of Kevesten
Prime Minister from 1979-1990
Conservative and Unionist
The Queen's longest serving and first (and to date) only female Prime Minister. Being the same age as the Queen, there was an expectation that the two women wouldn't get on but apparantly their relationship grew closer as the years went by. Lady Thatcher is said to have upset the Queen a few times, most notably over the Fagin break-in and Thatcher's blocking of the Queen's attendance at a Commonwealth meeting. Despite this, Margaret Thatcher has written glowing tributes to the Queen in her books and is a staunch monarchist. The Queen attended Margaret Thatcher's 80th birthday party in 2006, as did the Duke of Edinburgh and Princess Alexandra of Kent.
Sir John Major, KG, CH, PC
Prime Minister from 1990-1997
Conservative and Unionist
He inherited a slightly poisoned chalice but his relationship with the Queen didn't seem to suffer. She recently made him a Knight of the Garter. Though the Queen apparantly knew of his affair with Edwina Currie, she always remained amiable to him and his premiership seemed to be monarchy-friendly.
Tony Blair
Prime Minister from 1997-2007
Labour
He'll leave soon.
--------------------
So, what do you make of the Queen's relationship with her Prime Ministers? Who has the Queen got on well with and how should a Prime Minister treat the monarch? Your views please on the Queen and her Prime Ministers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Privy_Council_for_Canada
Erm - don't you need a slightly more informative section on Mr Blair, especially given the way he's perceived as having been the biggest threat to the monarchy of any of her PMs?
Useful list otherwise, and a good basis for a thread.
Useful list otherwise, and a good basis for a thread.
wbenson
Former Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 2,900
- City
- -
- Country
- United States
I've always read that the Queen got on quite well with Harold Wilson. I recall reading that their 30 minute audiences typically lasted an hour or more.
Tony Blair has done quite a lot of things over the years to undercut the contribution of the monarch to the government, and (if the broadsheet newspapers are to be believed) the first that Buckingham Palace heard about some of them was from the media because they were done without consultation.
CasiraghiTrio
Heir Apparent , TRF Author, Royal Blogger
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2005
- Messages
- 6,398
- City
- Burbank
- Country
- United States
I'm sure of equal fascination is how she as Princess Elizabeth got on with the PMs who were in office during her father's reign. While her contact with them must have been rather shallow and formal, perhaps there are some interesting things there. For example, I wonder how she felt about Attlee (sp?). Apparently, her father did not like him at all (not surprising, as George VI was supposed to have been rather Conservative) but it is interesting to me that Attlee was surprisingly awed by the monarchy. BeatrixFan pointed out in another thread that Labour PMs have not always been as hostile as one might expect, and Attlee seems to fit in that compartment, no?
I remember recently (?) when the Queen unveiled a statue of Churchill, she was standing in front of it and looked rather emotional. It must have been a powerful moment for her. Whatever one's feelings about the man, "the Churchill years" were a dramatic time of her life.
I remember recently (?) when the Queen unveiled a statue of Churchill, she was standing in front of it and looked rather emotional. It must have been a powerful moment for her. Whatever one's feelings about the man, "the Churchill years" were a dramatic time of her life.
CasiraghiTrio
Heir Apparent , TRF Author, Royal Blogger
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2005
- Messages
- 6,398
- City
- Burbank
- Country
- United States
That's very sad. I might be empathetic of a PM who doesn't necessarily fawn over the Queen, but to actively undercut her..... That is very unfortunate.Elspeth said:
I think in Britain you guys have a very good choice with Cameron and Brown. They are very different, obviously, but I like them both, to be honest. I'm undecided about some things re: Cameron but that's not the topic of the thread, so suffice it to say, though undecided, I am still impressed by both of them for various reasons. I think in a way you can't go wrong with these two.
BeatrixFan
Majesty , Royal Blogger, TRF Author
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2005
- Messages
- 6,861
- City
- London
- Country
- United Kingdom
Gordon Brown is a steaming great republican. He'll probably sideline the Queen as much as he can - basically, it's anyone who gets in the way with him.
BeatrixFan
Majesty , Royal Blogger, TRF Author
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2005
- Messages
- 6,861
- City
- London
- Country
- United Kingdom
It'll be a wonder if they survive at all. Brown is likely to surround himself with fellow republicans. Then again, I give Brown 6 months at the helm at the most. He's not popular at all.
Duke of Marmalade
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 14,600
- City
- Frankfurt am Main
- Country
- Germany
BeatrixFan said:
I couldn't agree more. Brown stands for everything that Blair did including backing his decision to go to Iraq. Blair survived that long because he was excellent in presenting himself and doing speeches. Brown is lacking that charisma and is just boring - and a bit scruffy so women don't like him. My bet is that the next elected PM being invited by the Queen is David Cameron. He stands for a change as Labour was in power for too long, and, as Blair, he can present himself very well. Not as professional yet as Blair of course, but his time will come.
Don't want to sound too political here - it's just an opinion as I won't be entitled to vote anyway
BTW - interesting thread!
- Status
Similar threads
