It did not come as a surprise to me that a hereditary monarchy feels ideologically closer to a Conservative government than to a Labour one. What astonished me though was the grossly insensitive decision to exclude Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from the Royal Wedding on Friday. It is a social humiliation and embarrassment but not so much for them as for the Royal Family.
Until now, one of the great strengths of the monarchy was its public impartiality and its ability to act as a uniting rather than dividing force. However, the omission of Blair and Brown from the guest list – regardless of whatever you think of their politics – makes a parody of its neutrality and is, in fact, an affront to representative democracy. All of the living former Prime Ministers attended Prince Charles’ and Lady Diana’s wedding and there is no reason why protocol should be different this time.
I do not buy the” Order of the Garter/not a state occasion” nonsense. Apparently, there is room for questionable characters, such as the King of Bahrain or a Mugabe devoted diplomat, but not for Blair and Brown. The wedding snub reminds me of a lesson learnt in 1997, when The People’s Prime Minister remembered the People’s Princess with respect and dignity, while The People’s Queen locked herself away in Balmoral: Sometimes, you have to save the Royals from themselves.
—————————————————————————————————
John Rentoul on why membership of the royal family is a cruel, unusual and arbitrary punishment, and is therefore contrary to the Geneva Convention.
John Rentoul again why the snub to Tony Blair makes a nonsense of claims that Friday’s wedding has modernised a fundamentally Conservative institution.
Another splendid and spot-on analysis by my very precious friend Nick Cohen (who bitterly complained I only linked to John’s article).
More toughts on “the royal scam” by Martin in the margins.
I used the same phrase – the People’s Prime Minister – and some of the same arguments in a comment at the Telegraph today, Julie. This was an astonishing, disgraceful decision. Who will help secure the future of the Royal Family in years to come now that they have snubbed the strongest (Labour Prime Ministerial) supporter of the Monarchy for decades?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8470160/Royal-wedding-How-Labours-PMs-were-never-quite-in-the-royal-inner-circle.html#dsq-content
Absolutely unforgivable, biased decision. Highly politicised. Unspeakably rude. Imho, all Charles’s doing.
Some might say – “off with his head”. I couldn’t possibly comment.
The royal family don’t ‘do’ sensitivity, do they? I agree with you completely, Julie. I think the royals always resented New Labour’s popularity and success, and I don’t suppose they’ve ever recovered from Tony and Alastair taking over their PR management after Diana’s death – though they should be grateful that it saved them from public anger.
I was appalled! It is rudeness, pure and simple. Worse – it was political rudeness from the apolitical royal family. Despite everything I have always been, on balance, pro-monarchy. This has FINALLY given me pause.
Having promised a close family member I’d lend a hand with their street party on The Day I no longer wish to do so. Stuck with it, unfortunately. Some of us do understand manners.
no words absolutely disgusting bias pure and simple.
http://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/blair-brown-not-invited-to-royal-wedding/
http://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/we-are-not-amused/
http://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/our-queen-v-tony-blair-round-two/
I do understand what you are saying, but feel the Queen was completely justified in excluding both Brown and Tony Blair. My evidence is given on the links above.
Ref angelnstar’s comment and links:
It’s not as though Cyber Boris is biased in any way, is it? He only wants Blair beheaded.
I’ll put it simple and I’ll put it plain: if it hadn’t been for Tony Blair encouraging senior members of the royal family to show some public empathy and even just personal sympathy or grief after a member of their OWN family had been killed, the Queen, Charles, William and the rest would now be working for a living.
While their may be a touch of truth in criticising some of Blair’s thoughts and words about the Queen in his memoirs – to be blunt, there wasn’t much we didn’t know before. We know she cooks and washes up. We know she is a touch haughty.
As for keeping mum about conversations with the Queen, surely this only refers to political conversations? In that, Blair was and still is silent as expected. If this required reticent or “silence” also embraces personal and personality matters, I think it an anomaly that the unelected monarch seems to be considered the only person in the country whose conversation and interactions MUST be kept confidential. In these days when so many call for complete and utter openness, this situation is frankly undemocratic, perhaps untenable.
Her Majesty does not decide on policy or the enactment of political policy. She doesn’t make the laws. She doesn’t get the blame when/if things go wrong or become unpopular. She is a closed book as to her opinions. An exemplary figurehead in many ways, but no other public figure, certainly no politician could get away with this sort of secrecy. And politicians are democratically elected and accountable.
I am most disappointed in the royal family’s decision, though I do think it is Charles’ rather than the Queen’s. It is also clearly anti Labour party. I say this as someone who supports – or used to support – the monarchy. And as someone who is not a member or supporter of the Labour party.
I have a poll here:
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/williams-wedding-poll-should-blair-brown-have-been-invited/
Pingback: A right Royal snub for the People’s Prime Minister: Pt 1 “The People’s Princess” « Tony Blair
http://cyberboris.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/blair-brown-not-invited-to-royal-wedding/
There is further information here on why Tony Blair was not invited to the Royal Wedding. This article (see Update at end of blog) suggests that Gordon Brown was the inadvertant victim of the Palace’s intention not to invite Tony Blair and gives the real reason why Blair has not been invited.
All speculations.
Clearly neither Blair, Brown and their ilk fit into the scenario.
The abject pomposity of Mrs Blair in not showing respect to Her Majesty should not and ultimately was not acceptable. The nasty side of Socialist behaviour has been shown by both the Blairs and Brown. Less so by the latter, but he never really counted anyway.
I applaud the decision not to invite these two on the grounds that they simply refused to accept protocol and to adopt decent behaviour. Mrs Blair? A wonderful example of a “wannabe” who never was and never will be!
Julie, you are right, it is all speculation. What is not speculation though is that Tony Blair did report royal conversations in his biography. He described his dealings with royalty at length, not in a nice way. He also claimed the credit for “handling” the Royals at the time of the death of Princess Diana.
It is very likely therefore that Prince William took the strongest exception to this, and did not want Blair at the wedding.
Usually by now, Blair would have received the Order of the Thistle, the Scots version of the Order of the Garter. He has not. If he never gets it, it will be pretty clear that he is not considered to be a suitable recipient.
Angelnstar,
You say at your blog you’d like to see TB in a prison cell which means you think he’s a war criminal which means you break No. 8 of my IWGDRs which means I am not prepared to discuss with you.
This makes the Royal Family look petty and undermines a state occasion. After the IMF affair, this has Cameron’s fingerprints all over it.
Julie the Chilton Inquiry revealed that Tony Blair misled the House of Commons over weapons of mass destruction, thus dragging us into an illegal war, in which thousands of women and children died. Anyone else would be tried as a war criminal, and get a jail sentence. Mayor of London Boris Johnson has said he believes Tony Blair deserves a spell in jail. What Blair did was unpardonable and I can’t understand how you can defend the indefensible. He has brought so much sorrow and shame to this country.
None of the reasons given for not inviting Blair or Brown, are acceptable. If the Royal Family could so easily put aside the “sins” of the murderers and tyrants on the guest list (if only for the sake of this one happy day, don’t ya know?), why couldn’t wouldn’t they put aside a few little differences between the Queen and Blair? Apparently, insulting the Queen or any other Royal Family member is a greater sin than murder. LOL!!
Can anyone tell me why the Obamas were not invited? What did they do wrong?
“Apparently, insulting the Queen or any other Royal Family member is a greater sin than murder” –> Ha! Quite so, auntie.
As for the Obamas, mhh maybe not conservative/posh enough?!
I think the Obamas and the Sarkozy’s were not invited because the wedding would have b een so huge and unmanageable that security would have been a nightmare and a slightly more intimate occasion was preferred. That is what the Palace said.
As for Blair and Brown, the Royal Family and Prince William can invite whom they like because it was not a state occasion.
As for Blair and Brown – I’m not bothered about Sarkozy or Obama – it certainly LOOKED like a state occasion to me!
Don’t always accept what the Palace says, btw.
Written about it here:
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/part-3-grotesque-despots-and-druggies-with-royal-relationships-at-williams-wedding/
It was Prince William’s wedding, he dislikes Tony Blair (a friend of mine knows Harry) and why should he invite someone he deeply dislikes and resents to his wedding?
Since Blair dragged the UK into a war by misrepresenting the facts regarding WMD, I would have thought that alone was reason enough not to invite him.
John Major’s and Douglas Hurd’s support for Milosevic was reason enough then to invite them, eh?! Impressive logic.
Mugabe’s representative was there – the things he says about British royalty are not flattering. This was a monumental faux pas. The fact that even the slavishly right wing Daily Fail deplores it speaks volumes.
@ angelnstar,
We’ve seen your facile comments at Twitter, so we all know where you stand on Tony Blair. Whether we like him or not is not the point.
If you think this was just William and Kate’s wedding, a private affair, you are as daft as you deserve to be. Since when did Prince William “like” half the dignatories – the despots, druggies and drop-outs who were also there for “political reasons”? This “his” wedding is a crazy, puerile thing to suggest. Since it cost us the taxpayer around £34m (not William – US) to stage this little event – this “private” affair which was then broadcast around the world for the benefit of the monarchy, they might have thought it worth showing that the monarchy is above politics. They might have thought that the two most recent former prime ministers, especially Blair who saved their bacon after Diana’s death, but Brown too, should have been there as the people’s recent elected representatives.
(Cameron and Clegg, remember, did NOT get a working majority in the last general election. They were not the people’s choice. Blair was. THREE TIMES.) But former Tory PMs Major and Thatcher were both invited. Atrocious decision. Unforgivable.
In this world where many despots laud it over the minions our monarchy should have shown us that they represent and are actually accountable to the people. They actually ARE accountable to the people in reality. If we don’t want them any more we can vote for a party proposing to remove them. Never forget that.
Instead they have shown us their small minds. And proved the opposite as to who answers to whom. We have been reminded that we, elected representatives or not, are accountable to them. So Cameron had better mind his Ps and Qs.
Blair’s exclusion had nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with Iraq.
I’ve posted the first of three posts on what I think it had to do with. The clue is in the title of Part 1.
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/3-real-reasons-tony-blair-was-not-at-william-kates-wedding-diana-diana-diana/
Absolutely, BS! Pathetic to suggest it was a private affair and matter of like/dislike, yet inviting a Mugabe devoted diplomat, the North Korean Ambassador and other dodgy individuals. If William/Charles/the Queen or all three of them prefer those over a three times democratically elected Prime Minister, I am seriously concerned……..
And as the Independent article stated: if the snub was a question of the Queen (or Charles, or William, or Harry) not ‘liking’ Blair, it “makes a nonsense of claims that Friday’s wedding has modernised a fundamentally Conservative institution”. It was also very bad breeding and bad manners.
And another thing, angelnstar – you who are so loose with the truth.
Quote: “… the Chilton Inquiry revealed that Tony Blair misled the House of Commons over weapons of mass destruction, thus dragging us into an illegal war, in which thousands of women and children died. ”
WRONG!WRONG! WRONG! In more ways than one.
Er, ChilCOT Inquiry! Got it?
The Chilcot Inquiry did not so reveal. The papers you read interpreted things as such.
We will have to await the panel’s write-up on this but it is highly unlikely that there will be anything coming out of it to give the “Blair a war criminal” gang anything to get excited about.
Boris Johnson is a fool, and deserves to be locked up himself pour encourager les autres imbeciles. As do all of those who think they KNOW that anyone is a criminal before they are tried. (Cute little way we have here of assuming innocence until proven guilty.)
Tony Blair has brought pride to this country. But in the end history will be the real judge, not you, nor even me.
Tony Blair has brought pride to this country…….I would laugh if it weren’t so tragic. Tony Blair has brought sorrow and suffering to this country.
We are all going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There is no meeting point between my view which is that he is a war criminal who betrayed the confidences of our Queen to sell his memoirs and your view which is that he is blameless and a credit to the UK, haha.
There is one and only one thing that Tony Blair said that I totally agree with. He said “God will judge me”. That is right.
@keeptonyblairforpm Cyberboris is me, angie! That’s my website.
Will ignore the comments about Boris. Blair isn’t fit to clean his boots.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23949737-iraq-inquiry-must-recall-campbell-to-explain-himself.do
Doubts over Alastair Campbell’s evidence re. WMD and he might be recalled to explain himself. I told you so……
I do not know whether a reply placed just above my comment was intended for me or not. If it was so, I can assure the writer that my comments are absolutely factual and can be corroborated. They are under no circumstance of a speculative nature.