So why was Tony Blair not invited to the Royal Wedding?

Three interesting possibilities:
1) From this 2007 Mail article :

'For a modern monarch to rebuke a serving Prime Minister is extremely rare.

The Queen has done it only once in her reign - and the object of her disfavour was Tony Blair. The telling-off came in the early days of the Blair premiership.

The occasion was the State Opening of Parliament which followed a few days after the 1997 election.

In a massive challenge to the authority of the British monarchy, Tony and Cherie Blair sought to capture the event for themselves.

They made the unprecedented decision to walk from Downing Street to Parliament while the Queen arrived in her royal coach.

This decision mattered deeply because the drama of the state opening is all about the Queen: her departure by stagecoach from Buckingham Palace, her arrival in Parliament through the Sovereign's Entrance under the Royal Tower, the putting on of the crown and robes of state before the final entrance to the House of Lords' chamber.

...

An air of understated but definite menace at all times lay behind New Labour's dealing with the monarchy.

In 1997 the New Labour manifesto gave an assurance that "we have no plans to replace the monarchy".

This undertaking - as the more intelligent courtiers grasped - would not have been made had an attack on the British monarchy not been on the agenda.

Plans to get rid of the Royal Yacht were at the heart of the election campaign, sending out what pollsters called a "dog whistle" message - not heard by everyone - that the party was opposed to the Royal Family.

In private briefings with allies in the Press, New Labour in government was openly hostile, with senior figures inside Downing Street freely attacking the Royal Family.

In private the Blairs and their official entourage showed a startling lack of respect.

For the first time since the Queen acceded to the throne in 1952, relations between senior members of the Royal Family and the Prime Minister became actively unpleasant.

This reflected a new attitude from the Prime Minister and those around him. His aides were capable of great impatience with royal procedures, often going beyond rudeness.

The worst offenders were Tony Blair's wife, Cherie, and his adviser Alastair Campbell. She would refuse to curtsy when she met the Queen, and was capable of blanking out senior members of the Royal Family when she encountered them.

She made no pretence at all that she enjoyed royal occasions, and often, through physical and other signals, made it clear that she would rather be elsewhere.

This private lack of respect towards the Royal Family came to be reciprocated. Once Cherie Blair told Princess Anne to "call me Cherie". "Mrs Blair will do," replied the Princess Royal.

...

Shortly after he was appointed Foreign Secretary in 2002, Jack Straw gave an interview to the Guardian in which he referred twice to Tony Blair as "head of state".

At one stage the Downing Street website described how the Queen enjoyed audiences with Tony Blair, and not the other way around.

The Treasury moved fast to remove the royal coat of arms from its logo and drop the initials HM from its official title. The change was said to "reflect a modern image under Gordon Brown's stewardship".

During a visit to Kosovo Tony Blair referred to "my" armed forces, oblivious to the important constitutional fact that British troops owe their allegiance to the monarch as head of state.

Meanwhile the Government set out to write the monarchy out of British public life, an audacious task involving the unravelling of 1,000 years of history.

The most important example of this was the very serious attempt by the Labour government to create a new national identity.

This involved disregarding the institutions of the state that had historically been at the heart of Britain, and replacing them by others, such as a new national day.

In a series of public statements Labour ministers argued that Britain should be defined by abstract values such as fairness. They never mentioned the monarchy.

A series of speeches by Gordon Brown about "Britishness" - an ugly and artificial word - systematically excluded the British monarchy, even though the Queen is head of state and the monarchy encapsulated Britain's long history better than any other institution, including Parliament.

...

Attempts to intrude on the territory of the monarch were to become a repeated feature of the Blair period in office.

The death of Diana, Princess of Wales in August 1997 gave a massive opportunity for the Prime Minister.

The words he uttered on the morning after the tragedy, in which he expressed his devastation at the death of Princess Diana, were brilliantly chosen and widely praised for expressing the mood of the nation.

Members of the Royal Family had been trained from birth to suppress their emotions, exercise restraint and show dignity.

The political philosopher David Marquand noted that when Diana died "the royals behaved as they had been taught to do: as symbols of the state, quintessential inhabitants of the public domain, with all its emotional austerity and self-control".

Previous generations of politicians, had shown comparable restraint (and the Tory leader William Hague was criticised for an inadequate expression of grief when he made his statement about the Princess's death).

Tony Blair, in his response, was at his most formidable as a politician. By showing open grief, and by using the phrase "people's princess", he was opening up new ground and massively extending the territory of the Political Class.

Five years later, following the death of the Queen Mother, the Prime Minister sought to intrude once again into the public domain occupied by the British Royal Family.

Within 24 hours of the Queen Mother's death on March 30, 2002, Tony Blair was seeking to enlarge his public role in the funeral.

Downing Street officials persistently rang Lt-General Sir Michael Willcocks, known as "Black Rod", putting pressure on him for the Prime Minister to play a more prominent part than had originally been planned, including the astonishing proposal that Tony Blair should break with precedent and walk from Downing Street to Westminister Hall in order to meet the Queen Mother's coffin. This pressure was rejected.

Sir Michael also faced intimidation in the wake of the funeral. He refused to endorse the false Downing Street claim that Tony Blair had not tried to muscle in.

After he withstood constant pressure, Tony Blair's press secretary Alastair Campbell vowed that "we'll get him one day".

The problem for Tony Blair and New Labour is simple to explain. The ten-day remembrance period for the Queen Mother left him without a central role.

At state events such as the Queen Mother's funeral, the Prime Minister of the day ranked lower than politically far less significant figures such as the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons.

This was not, of course, a threat to the Government: the funeral of the Queen Mother had nothing at all to do with politics as it had conventionally been practised.

But it was a challenge specifically to New Labour, because the commemoration period for the Queen Mother claimed back a part of British public life, normally outside politics, that New Labour has asserted as its own.

This meant that the queues for the lying-in-state were almost as disconcerting for New Labour as the grief for Princess Diana had been for the Royal Family five years previously.

The great celebration of the Queen Mother's life was an affront to the Political Class because it was a reminder of the existence of a Britain whose loyalties and allegiances went far deeper than party, but had everything to do with the love of Queen, country, village, school, town and family.

These allegiances were wholly compatible with voting Labour, Liberal Democrat, Tory or any number of other political parties.

They are not, however, compatible with totalitarian politics, which lays claim to space that lies well outside party politics as it has always been practised in Britain.

There is little doubt that New Labour in power yearned to make a full-frontal and lethal attack on the British monarchy. There is little doubt that only the sustained popularity of the Queen prevented it from doing so.

Extracted from THE TRIUMPH OF THE POLITICAL CLASS by Peter Oborne'

2. Alex Masterley thinks there might be another explanation:

'Rules for wedding invites, particularly Royal ones

...

Which leads us to the issue of the preferment of Arab dictator princelings to Scottish ex-prime ministers. Now let's face it, if it came down to a personality test, it would probably be a dead heat, but that isn't what counts. Forget protocol (there is none), and consider the feelings of the young couple.

Which would they rather have at their wedding? The one who isn't just going to give them a full dinner service, but also a pair of his and hers matching Lamborghinis and a year's supply of petrol. With some wedding guests, excessive lavishness is de rigueuer.

... but not Phoney Bliar and Prudence McDoom.'

3. Or was it Prince William's decision:

'A prominent historian has claimed that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was not invited to Friday’s royal wedding because Prince William dislikes the politician and not of political things.

“I think the plain truth is that for all sorts of reasons, (Prince) William developed a powerful dislike of Mr Blair,” David Starkey told Sky News during a debate on the monarchy.

“Particularly the way in which he intervened at his mother’s funeral service. These are not political at all, they are personal choices,” he said.'

Whatever the reason I must say that it was pleasant not to have see the unbearably smug Tony Blair and his ever grasping wife, Cherie, sitting in the Quire/Choir. I presume that the Metropolitan Police were also relieved at not having to accommodate his personal protection team as well as not having to keep an eye on Cherie in case she decided to acquire some souvenirs to sell on eBay...

At least one family got rich off the backs of the UK population

Yes it's the bloody Blairs. The Mail reports that:

'The first time she decided to buy property for him, Cherie Blair was forced into a tearful public apology.

Eight years after that controversial purchase of two flats in Bristol, Mrs Blair is helping eldest son Euan to buy a £1.3million London townhouse.

It means the family has amassed property worth an astonishing £14million since Tony Blair entered Downing Street.

Their expanding portfolio now totals seven homes, including four in central London.

The latest addition is a four-storey, Grade II-listed townhouse just a few streets away from the Blairs' £3.7million Connaught Square mansion.'

Nasty family who we still protect by paying for permanent police guard outside the Blair's Connaught Square house. Tony & Cherie Blair have grown exceedingly rich as a consequence of his having being Prime Minister so let them pay for their own police protection.

Can it get any worse for Gordon Brown?

Just when I thought that Gordon Brown has received all the bad news that he could possibly receive, I read that:

"Cherie Blair has said that she intends to campaign for Labour at the general election"

Yes a woman even less popular than her hated husband and of almost as repulsive a character as Gordon Brown is to campaign for him. Apparently the great freeloader thinks that the Labour party under Gordon Brown can win the next election; the odds are against it and they will shorten if the public are reminded of her performances whilst the wife of the Prime Minister.

Cherie Blair does it again

The most embarrassing Prime Minister's spouse ever has done it again, this time she's reportedly managed to send out congratulatory letters to "senior women lawyers" without any stamps on them. I suppose when you are as important as Cherie Blair and married to someone as important as Tony Blair (ex-PM, soon to be President of Europe) these little details are below you.

Do we have the ability to govern ourselves any more?

This time not an article about the EU and their power over us but about the news that

"Human rights laws have prevented Britain deporting 19 terror suspects in the last three years, the Home Secretary was forced to admit."

Apparently:

"Jacqui Smith told MPs that proceedings were commenced to remove the suspects on "national security grounds" but were later discontinued.

The cases were dropped because of fears they were not compatible with the UK's international obligations - including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

It is another embarrassment for the Government, which has suffered a series of human rights defeats surrounding extremists and foreign criminals.

A further 11 cases are going through the system and in a twelfth the Special Immigration Appeals Commission upheld an appeal against deportation, she said.

In figures in a Commons written answer, Ms Smith said: "Since 2005, there have been 19 cases where deportation action on national security grounds was commenced, but was later discontinued because it was concluded that it would not be possible to demonstrate that removal would be in conformity with the UK's international obligations, including out obligations under Article 3 ECHR.

"These cases are kept under review."

Article 3 of the Convention is the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

Ms Smith continued: "There are currently 11 cases where we are seeking to deport individuals on grounds of national security because of their suspected involvement in terrorism.

"These are at various stages in the appeals process.

"In a twelfth case, the appeal against the decision to deport was allowed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission as it was not satisfied that the case for deportation on national security grounds had been made out." "

These individuals appear to be people all convicted of terrorist offences who Gordon Brown promised would be deported but have not been. I presume Gordon Brown will be making a statement on this matter and that the BBC will be asking some serious questions... Of course Gordon Brown will do no such thing as he has an economy to ruin and an election to finesse. The BBC, for its part, will continue to support Gordon Brown in all that he does and of course to support the Human Rights Act and to imply that these "terrorists" who the BBC will call "militants" whilst suggesting that they are victims of American and British imperialism.

The result of this inaction is that more and more Islamic terrorists will continue to live and indeed move to live in the UK with no fear of being deported, and these terrorists will be able to plan their attacks in Britain or abroad. So people will die or be horribly mutilated all because this Labour government thinks that the "human rights" of terrorists are worth more than the human rights of innocent Britains; well done Tony & Cherie Blair and the rest of the lawyers that infested the Labour party when it came to power, and indeed still do.

Cherie Blair - part of the problem not part of the solution

The Telegraph report that:

"Cherie Blair, the wife of the former prime minister, has been booed by relatives of murder victims after arguing that their killers' rights should be respected.

Paul Bowman, whose teenage daughter Sally Anne was raped before being stabbed and her body defiled, challenged Mrs Blair to explain why "inhuman" murderers should be protected by the law.

She angered delegates at a fringe meeting at Conservative Party conference by suggesting that those who wished to change the Human Rights Act were advocating the return of slavery or disagreed with the sanctity of life.

There were hisses and angry shouts from the crowd, which included a number of victims' relatives, as Mrs Blair, a leading human rights lawyer, was drowned out and forced to abandon her argument.

Mr Bowman told Mrs Blair: "Where the human rights are concerned I'm wondering if there's a possibility that when somebody decides, like the perpetrator of the crime against Sally, to go out armed of a night to murder, waits until the coast is clear then rapes, bites, desecrates the body of an 18-year-old girl, [then] I personally believe that that man's human rights should be waived to a degree.

"I think that there should be an amendment to the Human Rights Act where someone if they choose to step outside being a human being, they choose to commit an inhuman act, then the Human Rights Act does not apply."

Mrs Blair insisted that the Act was "part of the solution not part of the problem"."

Booing is the least that this creature deserves to happen to her, she and her ilk have done their best to destroy the UK from within and to turn her words back on her - she is part of the problem not part of the solution..

I believe that the armed police that seem to be on permanent duty on Connaught Street are there to guard her, her vile husband, her family and property. What a waste of public money; surely Tony and Cherie could use some of the money that they have "earned" of the back of the UK taxpayer and pay for their own security guards.

We are all still paying for Tony Blair

The Mail online report that:

"In Jerusalem it has become much harder to get a room in the city's best hotel, a carved stone palace that was once the haunt of Churchill and Lawrence of Arabia.

The reason for the shortage is simple. There are only 86 bedrooms at the American Colony Hotel and ten of them ? more than an entire floor ? have been booked indefinitely by Tony Blair to be used as offices by his mission to the Middle East.

The cost, much of it borne by the British taxpayer, is considerable. The Mail on Sunday has obtained a copy of Mr Blair's contract with the hotel, which shows it is being paid nearly $1.34million ? about £700,000 ? annually for the office rooms alone.

When Mr Blair and his entourage of six bodyguards, a Press officer and Nick Banner, a former member of his team at Downing Street, are in town, the space available at the Colony shrinks still further.

Although the well appointed British Consulate-General is just three streets away, they sleep at the Colony ? adding about £2,000 per night to the bill, not including food.

Since Mr Blair's appointment last June, the mission has also purchased a £75,000 armoured car and spent £55,000 on security, £15,000 on phones, computers and stationery, £2,500 on car rental and £20,000 on general administration.

Naturally enough, when Mr Blair flies to Israel, something he does at least once a month, he and Mr Banner go first-class on British Airways, a return fare costing £2,424 each.

The bodyguards have to put up with club, which costs £1,732."

It is good to know that with or without a credit crunch, Tony Blair will continue to live in luxury at the British taxpayers' expense. Tony Blair and his free-loading wife are a rather unpleasant stain upon the history of the UK, I wish them nothing but unhappiness. As I was saying recently to a friend regarding a rich and rather grasping acquaintance of ours who is experiencing some personal unhappiness at the moment; "maybe now he will realise that money does not ensure happiness and that screwing as much money as possible out of people may make you rich but it will also ensure that if you hit personal trouble there will be very few people ready to help, and more ready to take pleasure."

John Prescott's diaries

My position re covering John Prescott's diaries is as I wrote about Cherie Blair and Alastair Campbell's diaries. I will not be reporting on any of their books, I have no interest in helping these vile people to make even more money from this Country.

Cherie Blair's interviews

As with Alastair Campbell's diaries I will not be reporting on Cherie Blair's upcoming book and the sneak previews that have started appearing. I have no interest in helping this vile woman to make even more money from this Country.

Tony Blair didn't rate Gordon Brown - shock horror revelation

From THe Mail comes the all but unbelievebale news that Tony Blair didn't think too much of Gordon Brown, wow who would have believed that!

Anyway, back to the story, these are some of my favourite phrases from the story arising from an interview with Cherie Blair's father, Tony Booth:

"Mr Booth says the two men's relationship reached such a low while they were Downing Street neighbours that Mr Brown once refused to let Cherie Blair carpet his half of the corridor linking No10 with No11... "Once she was having new carpets fitted in No10. But when the fitters got to the corridor dividing No10 from No11, they were told to stop halfway leaving the other half, to No11, uncarpeted. "Brown said they couldn't put anything down in his half. I have never met such a mean man."

Yes, that sounds petty enough for Gordon Brown to have done. A tough choice who to support in that stand-off though; Gordon or Cherie...



""The truth is both Brown and Smith treated Tony like a junior partner and contemptuously called him 'the boy' as they prepared for power," he said. "Even at John Smith's funeral Brown tried to humiliate Tony. "When Tony arrived he found himself in a pew behind a big pillar while Brown and the rest had prime positions in full view of the TV cameras and so on.""

Gordon Brown petty enough to humiliate a "friend" at a funeral; sounds about right.



""Tony thinks Brown's a 'blinker', someone who blinks in a stand-off. "Tony never blinks, no matter who he meets. But Brown's different. I don't want a Prime Minister who blinks first, and I don't think Tony does, either.""

Gordon Brown a "blinker", maybe that's why Ed Balls does that rapid blinking thing, he's trying to curry favour with his master.


Of course officially Tony and Gordon are best friends, hence this:
"Mr Blair's spokesman said the ex-Premier dissociated himself completely from his father-inlaw's remarks.

He said: "Gordon Brown has Tony Blair's full support - he neither knew of, nor agrees with, these remarks."

A source close to Mr Brown said: "We're not going to be distracted by this rather undignified sideshow."

So that's how Tony & Cherie knew they could afford the mortgage repayments

Oh what a surprise, Tony Blair "has taken a part-time post with US investment bank JP Morgan.
Mr Blair, who stood down as UK prime minister in June last year, has been employed "in a senior advisory capacity", the bank said. He said he looked forward to advising the bank on the "political and economic changes that globalisation brings". It is not known how much JP Morgan will pay him, but some estimates say more than $1m (£500,000) a year. The bank said he had a "unique perspective"."

Unique perspective, that just about sums it up.


"Mr Blair earlier told the Financial Times he planned to take up "a small handful" of similar roles with other companies in different sectors. "I have always been interested in commerce and the impact of globalisation. "

I think that translates as "I want to earn lots of money".


"In October, Mr Blair was publicly backed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy for the job of president of the European Council - dubbed "president of Europe" - a role which will be created under the terms of the new EU reform treaty."

I have always believed that was the plan, to quit as Prime Minister and then in time become the first President of Europe; just the job for a strutting popinjay such as Tony Blair. Can you imagine Cherie as the Empress of Europe? My stomach turns at the prospect.


Completely coincidentally in 2003 the New York Times reported that "J. P. Morgan Chase has been selected to operate a bank the United States is creating in Iraq to manage billions of dollars to finance imports and exports. J. P. Morgan will lead a group that includes 13 banks representing 13 countries to run the bank for three years, said Peter McPherson, the top United States economic adviser in Iraq."

Cherie Blair the expert on Islam

Apparently Cherie Blair the wife of our previous dearly beloved leader said in her recent speech about women and religious discrimination “It is not laid down in the Koran...that women can be beaten by their husbands or that their evidence should be devalued, as it is in some Islamic courts.” Fortunately we know better than to take the word of Cherie or Tony at face value and in this case we have the Koran itself and various translations of this holy book to speak for itself - "The Koran 4:34 tells men to chastise their wives after first warning them and sending them to sleep in separate beds. And “chastise” is one of the milder translations of the verse. Many editions use the words “scourge” or “beat”. The historian Robert Spencer provides a useful list:

Pickthall: “and scourge them”
Yusuf Ali: “(And last) beat them (lightly)”
Al-Hilali/Khan: “(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)”
Shakir: “and beat them”
Sher Ali: “and chastise them”
Khalifa: “then you may (as a last alternative) beat them”
Arberry: “and beat them”
Rodwell: “and scourge them”
Sale: “and chastise them”
Daryabadi: “and beat them”
Asad: “then beat them”"

You might want to head over to MEMRI TV where they have film of a Ramadan television show for young Muslims, in which Saudi cleric Muhammad Al-’Arifi explains the proper way to beat one’s wife.

The text of that clip runs thus:

"Muhammad Al-’Arifi: Men beat women more often than women beat men. I said that some women beat their husbands because this happens, but it is rare, and there is no need to hold conferences on wives who beat their husbands. I believe this is less prevalent, because by nature, the body of the man... In most cases, Allah made the body of men stronger than the body of women. Therefore, you and your sister... You may be taller than your mother, right? If your mother is ill, you may be able to carry her, but she cannot carry you. Allah created women with these delicate, fragile, supple, and soft bodies, because they use their emotions more than they use their bodies. Therefore, while the man may use beating to discipline his wife, she sometimes uses her tears to discipline him. He gets what he wants by screaming, while she gets what she wants from him by crying and displaying emotions. For men, women’s emotions may be fiercer than the strike of a sword.

[... ]

First, “admonish them” – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times. If this doesn’t help, “refuse to share their beds.” In such a case, the husband does not sleep with his wife, or, in other words, he is angry with her. He gives her the silent treatment, refusing to talk to her. If he comes to eat, and she asks him: “How are you?” – he doesn’t answer. If she asks him: “Do you want anything?” – he doesn’t answer. He distances himself from her in bed and in conversation, he does not sleep with her, but goes to sleep in another room. He shows her that he is angry with her. If this does not help – if the admonishing did no good, and when he goes to sleep in another room, she says: “Thank God, he’s gone. Now I’ve got the whole bed to myself, I will sleep alone in bed and roll over at night as much as I like.” If neither method worked with her, what is the third option?

Guest: “And beat them.”

Al-’Arifi: That’s right. How is this beating performed? What do you think?

Guest:: Light beatings.

Al-’Arifi: Light beatings in what way?

Guest:: For example, I wouldn’t beat her in the face...

Al-’Arifi: Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals. When a person is beating an animal... Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face. Some religious scholars say: “He should beat her with a toothpick.” I happen to have a toothpick with me. A man who is angry with his wife because she doesn’t get it... If he says to her: “Watch out, the child has fallen next to the stove,” or: “Move the child away from the electrical socket,” and she says: “I am busy” – then he beats her with a toothpick or something like it. He doesn’t beat her with a bottle of water, a plate, or a knife. This is forbidden. The scholars said he should beat her with a toothpick. Check out how gentle the toothpick used for beating is. This shows you that the purpose is not to inflict pain. When you beat an animal, you intend to cause it pain so it will obey you, because an animal would not understand if you said: “Oh camel, come on, start moving.” The camel does not understand such things, unless you beat it. A donkey understands nothing but beatings, but a woman, a man, a child, and so on, are generally more affected by emotions than by other things. If you beat her with a toothpick, or if you beat her lightly with your hand, and so on, it is meant to convey: “Woman, it has gone too far. I can’t bear it anymore.” If he beats her, the beatings must be light and must not make her face ugly. He must beat her where it will not leave marks. He should not beat her on the hand... He should beat her in some places where it will not cause any damage. He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child - slapping them right and left. Unfortunately, many husbands beat their wives only when they get mad, and when they start beating, it as if they are punching a wall – they beat with their hands, right and left, and sometimes use their feet. Brother, it is a human being you are beating. This is forbidden. He must not do this."
Thanks LGF



Back to the Telegraph's article:
"As for Mrs Blair’s claim that the Koran does not devalue the evidence of women, I’d like to see her try to stand up that claim in court. Koran 2:282 says quite unambiguously that if two men are not available to give testimony on financial matters, then the court should hear from one man and TWO women, “in case one of them errs”.

Now, it’s true that the Koran does not state explicitly that the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man – the convention throughout much of today’s Muslim world, including Saudi Arabia – but it very clearly does devalue the evidence of women."


I am sure that Cherie Blair thinks that she is helping the cause of community relations and good relations with a powerful ally country in the Middle East, but hiding the truth about the way that Islam is followed in Saudi Arabia will not help.