TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » General & Current Events

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 24-04-11, 10:08 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default Royal wedding: No place for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown

Royal wedding: No place for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - Telegraph

Quote:
The former Labour prime ministers will not join the 1,900-strong congregation at Westminster Abbey despite it being a “semi-state” occasion that they had been widely expected to attend.

By contrast, both their Conservative predecessors, Sir John Major and Baroness Thatcher, received invitations. Lady Thatcher declined on health grounds although Sir John will be present when Prince William marries Kate Middleton.

A spokesman for St James’s Palace said Mr Blair and Mr Brown had not received invitations because neither were Knights of the Garter, unlike Sir John and Lady Thatcher.

However, Labour MPs said it was “surprising” and “odd” that the pair had apparently been snubbed on what was a “great British occasion”.

All surviving former prime ministers, Harold Macmillan, Alec Douglas-Home, Harold Wilson, Edward Heath and James Callaghan, attended the Prince of Wales’s marriage to Lady Diana Spencer at St Paul’s Cathedral in 1981.

The relationship between Buckingham Palace and Mr Blair and, to a lesser extent, Mr Brown were marked by tension. Mr Blair’s wife, Cherie, refused to curtsy to members of the Royal family, and he was at the centre of a storm over arrangements for the funeral of the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother in 2002.

Although Mr Blair and Mr Brown failed to make the cut, the “government and diplomatic” guests include John Cranfield and his wife Vilma, who will represent St Helena. The British territory in the South Atlantic has a population of little more than 4,000.

There will also be representatives from Bermuda, St Vincent and the Grenadines, St Lucia, the Cayman Islands and Montserrat.

At least one guest is known to have republican tendencies — Julia Gillard, the Australian prime minister, has been invited along with her boyfriend, Tim Mathieson, a hairdresser turned estate agent.

And a wide spectrum of other guests have received an invitation, including the postman, pub landlord and butcher from Miss Middleton’s home village of Bucklebury, Berks, and the barman from her parents’ favourite holiday island, Mustique.

The list of prominent guests officially released on Saturday includes more than 200 politicians and diplomats, including David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary, have all been invited, as has Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary.

More than 40 members of foreign royal families will be present, as will 60 governors general and overseas prime ministers, and celebrities including Sir Elton John and David and Victoria Beckham.

While Prince William and Miss Middleton have taken a “hands on” role in overseeing the guest list, the invitations sent out to politicians and foreign dignitaries will have been closely monitored by Buckingham Palace.

A St James’s Palace spokesman, said: “Sir John Major is the only former prime minister going. Baroness Thatcher was invited, as were all Knights of the Garter, but is unable to attend. It is not a state occasion so there is no reason why they [Mr Blair and Mr Brown] would be invited.”

Following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales in 1997, Sir John Major, was appointed a guardian to Princes William and Harry and the Palace said he was invited for this “very specific reason”.

The spokesman added: “There is no protocol reason to invite them, so unless they [the couple] wanted to invite former prime ministers for a personal reason, there’s no reason to do so.

“It is a private wedding and the couple are entitled to invite whoever they want to it. Prince William is not the Prince of Wales or the King, and he hasn’t got that link to prime ministers in the way that the Queen does.”

The Order of the Garter, Britain’s highest order of chivalry, honours contributions to national life and is conferred by the Queen. Lady Thatcher was made a Lady Companion of the Garter in 1995, five years after leaving office, while Sir John, who left Number 10 in 1997, was made a Knight of the Garter in 2005.

Last week the Queen appointed two new members of the Order of the Garter, whose numbers are restricted to 24 - Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Britain’s most senior judge, and Admiral Lord Boyce, the former chief of the Defence Staff.

Neither Mr Blair’s office nor Mr Brown’s wished to comment on Saturday night.

However, Michael Dugher, the Labour MP, said: “It appears odd that surviving prime ministers other than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have rightly been invited to a semi-state occasion, while they haven’t.”

Another Labour MP, Tom Watson, said: “It’s a surprising selection. On big occasions such as this one would expect an all-or-nothing approach.”

Mr Blair had a tense relationship with the Royal family during his 10 years in office. He had several meetings with Diana, Princess of Wales, while still leader of the opposition and advised the Queen and the Prince of Wales on how to deal with the public mood on her death.

The low point came in 2002 when Number 10 was accused of attempting to intervene in arrangements for the late Queen Elizabeth’s funeral to ensure Mr Blair a more prominent role, something he has always denied.

When Mr Brown took over at Number 10 relations became less strained, though more formal. A former aide to Mr Brown said he had always followed protocol “impeccably” in his dealings with the Royal family.

Up to now the biggest controversy surrounding Friday’s wedding was Mr Cameron’s outfit. Downing Street had initially suggested the Prime Minister would wear a lounge suit rather a morning suit.

However, last week, it was announced that Mr Cameron will be wearing tails. It is understood that Mr Clegg and Mr Miliband will do so too.
Ouch.

Also, they should do away with morning dress. Sure, tradition, respect for the occasion, blah... But these days there's just no one who can pull it off without looking either super uncomfortable or like a total arse.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 24-04-11, 10:11 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

Also, John Major was Wills and Harry's guardian? Wtf?
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 25-04-11, 09:30 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

Royal wedding: when experts expect | Life and style | The Guardian

Quote:
Today's edition of Know Your Pundits showcases the Mail on Sunday's royal correspondent Katie Nicholl, who was only recently telling the Wall Street Journal that the jockeying amongst Britain's royal experts has got "very bitchy and competitive". She had, she explained, probably put a lot of noses out of joint. "I'm the girl with the book out," she sympathised. "I'm the girl with the big TV deal." The glamma of it! And so to Katie's most recent dispatch, which goes big on the fact that "William's uncle, Charles Spencer … will have no formal role" in the wedding service – though he "had been expected to deliver an address". Had been expected by whom, you might wonder? Meth addicts? People without access to media since 1986? No, it would seem this eventuality had been expected by certain "royal experts". So if you seek an answer to that timeworn question – what sets a royal expert apart from you, me, and a particularly backward gatepost? – then look no further than that declaration that Charles Spencer "had been expected to deliver an address". It's not so much the amusing belief that Friday's ultra-traditional wedding service allows for "an address" by personages other than the archbishop of Canterbury. Rather, it's the ability of the "royal expert" to imply that at high-level meetings of the wedding planning unit, a significant faction of courtiers were saying "Yes, we MUST give Earl Spencer another run-out – it really wouldn't be an abbey event without him bringing his special brand of public speaking to it." Of course, it's somewhat disappointing that no royal expert has yet stated that Mohamed Al Fayed "had been expected do a reading", but with any luck that oversight will be remedied in the coming days.

Incidentally, would media organisations please reconsider the seemliness of booking ex-King Constantine of Greece to discourse on the wedding? It is bad enough being subjected to the sterling work of psychologists/astrologers/Australian punsters on the matter, but there is something desperately infra dig about a man who would be king farting out anecdotes about William being "a hell of a nice guy" in return for a spot on breakfast telly. His Ex-jesty is implored to have a word with himself at once.


To those of you who have written asking whether this column was joking when it mentioned that Fearne Cotton would be part of the BBC's TV presenting team on the big day, I am delighted to say it wasn't. Have you not seen the trailers? From the tenor of your emails, I sense that you will be even more thrilled at news that Vernon Kay – the missing link between the Beeb and the vegetable kingdom – will be anchoring the coverage of the occasion on Radio 1. This seems profoundly appropriate for our times. You might recall that when the list of Tony Blair's Chequers dinner guests was reluctantly revealed, Vernon's name was there for all to see. Being prime minister is rather like being able to play the fantasy dinner party game for real, so the fact that Tony Blair could have rifled through a near-limitless Rolodex of fascinating public figures, yet plumped for Vernon Kay, speaks volumes about his character (were further volumes in any way required). That Vernon should once again find himself at our nation's high table says more about Where We Are At than any number of dystopian social treatises, and we can only await the Boltonian Zelig's next state appearance with infinite resignation.
I think this is the most disturbing thing I've ever read about Blair. Worse than the Messiah complex or the horrifying details of his sex life. What kind of warped human being has a dinner party and thinks to himself "hmm, that Vernon Kay seems like an interesting chap"?
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 25-04-11, 09:36 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

Royal wedding: when experts expect | Life and style | The Guardian

Quote:
Today's edition of Know Your Pundits showcases the Mail on Sunday's royal correspondent Katie Nicholl, who was only recently telling the Wall Street Journal that the jockeying amongst Britain's royal experts has got "very bitchy and competitive". She had, she explained, probably put a lot of noses out of joint. "I'm the girl with the book out," she sympathised. "I'm the girl with the big TV deal." The glamma of it! And so to Katie's most recent dispatch, which goes big on the fact that "William's uncle, Charles Spencer … will have no formal role" in the wedding service – though he "had been expected to deliver an address". Had been expected by whom, you might wonder? Meth addicts? People without access to media since 1986? No, it would seem this eventuality had been expected by certain "royal experts". So if you seek an answer to that timeworn question – what sets a royal expert apart from you, me, and a particularly backward gatepost? – then look no further than that declaration that Charles Spencer "had been expected to deliver an address". It's not so much the amusing belief that Friday's ultra-traditional wedding service allows for "an address" by personages other than the archbishop of Canterbury. Rather, it's the ability of the "royal expert" to imply that at high-level meetings of the wedding planning unit, a significant faction of courtiers were saying "Yes, we MUST give Earl Spencer another run-out – it really wouldn't be an abbey event without him bringing his special brand of public speaking to it." Of course, it's somewhat disappointing that no royal expert has yet stated that Mohamed Al Fayed "had been expected do a reading", but with any luck that oversight will be remedied in the coming days.

Incidentally, would media organisations please reconsider the seemliness of booking ex-King Constantine of Greece to discourse on the wedding? It is bad enough being subjected to the sterling work of psychologists/astrologers/Australian punsters on the matter, but there is something desperately infra dig about a man who would be king farting out anecdotes about William being "a hell of a nice guy" in return for a spot on breakfast telly. His Ex-jesty is implored to have a word with himself at once.


To those of you who have written asking whether this column was joking when it mentioned that Fearne Cotton would be part of the BBC's TV presenting team on the big day, I am delighted to say it wasn't. Have you not seen the trailers? From the tenor of your emails, I sense that you will be even more thrilled at news that Vernon Kay – the missing link between the Beeb and the vegetable kingdom – will be anchoring the coverage of the occasion on Radio 1. This seems profoundly appropriate for our times. You might recall that when the list of Tony Blair's Chequers dinner guests was reluctantly revealed, Vernon's name was there for all to see. Being prime minister is rather like being able to play the fantasy dinner party game for real, so the fact that Tony Blair could have rifled through a near-limitless Rolodex of fascinating public figures, yet plumped for Vernon Kay, speaks volumes about his character (were further volumes in any way required). That Vernon should once again find himself at our nation's high table says more about Where We Are At than any number of dystopian social treatises, and we can only await the Boltonian Zelig's next state appearance with infinite resignation.
I think this is the most disturbing thing I've ever read about Blair. Worse than the Messiah complex or the horrifying details of his sex life. What kind of warped human being has a dinner party and thinks to himself "hmm, that Vernon Kay seems like an interesting chap"?
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 27-04-11, 09:21 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
Ouch.
Ah, well, there are some costs to declaring an illegal war, contributing to the slaughter of tens of thousands and generally fucking things up very badly.

You won't be invited to the Royal Wedding...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 27-04-11, 01:17 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,149
Default

Quote:
Mr Blair’s wife, Cherie, refused to curtsy to members of the Royal family
Good on her.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 28-04-11, 01:59 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Yeah - I read that and I guess that'd be my reaction too... unless I was actually the Prime Minister of the damn country.

I mean, I am a French citizen. I never had any desire to be a British subject and find the whole thing offensive on a theoretical level.

OTOH, Cherie didn't have to meet the Queen. She could have stayed home, pretexting a migraine. But, having decided to meet her, in a official capacity, following protocol is basic politeness.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 28-04-11, 02:11 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,149
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
OTOH, Cherie didn't have to meet the Queen. She could have stayed home, pretexting a migraine. But, having decided to meet her, in a official capacity, following protocol is basic politeness.
Well, is it protocol, and should it be? I don't regard myself as a "subject", and I don't think the monarchy can really treat me as such, legally. We have human rights legislation etc. and can't be prosecuted for lčse majesté anymore. So I don't think it really is protocol as such, it's just convention, and one that should be rightly ignored and vilified. I don't think people should accept honours like OBE's either. I think it's entirely appropriate to treat the royals as just another citizen - they are not our superiors.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 28-04-11, 02:31 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by contracycle View Post
Well, is it protocol, and should it be? I don't regard myself as a "subject"...
... and it seems you're right, as of 1983 onward. My info was dated.

Quote:
I think it's entirely appropriate to treat the royals as just another citizen - they are not our superiors.
Well, they clearly are since they're born into heading the state/British Kingdom and its dependent territories.

You can't really have it both ways - Either Britain is a nation state or it's a kingdom. I don't mind too much either way but it is an "either... or..." proposition.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 28-04-11, 03:01 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,149
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
Well, they clearly are since they're born into heading the state/British Kingdom and its dependent territories.
How does that make them my superior? They don't have anything much in the way of legal rights over me, and I would deny the presumption that are of "better breeding". They are no more my superior than anyone else who haoppens to be born into a wealthier family, and I'm not about to genuflect before the offpsring of Bill and Melinda Gates.

Quote:
[You can't really have it both ways - Either Britain is a nation state or it's a kingdom. I don't mind too much either way but it is an "either... or..." proposition.
And my point is it isn't really a monarchy anymore, it's a republic with a ceremonial vermiform appendix, which we can well do without. Frankly they should count themselves lucky to get away without being beheaded.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 5
contracycle, Gilles de Rais, ktp, LiberalNation, Zichao
Thread Tools
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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0