?

Log in

No account? Create an account
The Nature Of The Monarchy - Eroticdreambattle — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tony Grist

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

The Nature Of The Monarchy [May. 1st, 2011|02:49 pm]
Tony Grist
The exclusion of Blair and Brown (former prime ministers and- Ed Miliband aside-  the most senior representatives of the British Left ) from the guest list for the royal wedding makes explicit what has always been implicit- that the monarchy is a conservative institution- and gives the lie to those who see it as a focus of unity in the nation.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: ron_broxted
2011-05-01 02:58 pm (UTC)
For the 1st time in our cyber-relationship I am aghast. Blair as left wing? Did you hibernate 1997 onwards or was it, a la Dr Who, another dimension?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ingenious76
2011-05-01 03:50 pm (UTC)
Unless it was so left wing he went all the way round and became right wing?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2011-05-01 04:09 pm (UTC)
I didn't say he was left-wing himself; I said he represented the left. There's a difference. Omitting him from the guest list was a snub to the party he once led (and with which he had so little sympathy). There are four living ex-prime ministers. When you invite the two Tory ones and overlook the two Labour ones you're making rather a strong political statement.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ingenious76
2011-05-01 04:30 pm (UTC)
The Obamas were not invited either. Neither were President Sarkozy and his wife, and despite her daughters' involvement, neither was the Duchess of York. So what does that say, exactly? That the monarch is racist, anti-French, and anti-American? Or that perhaps, despite this allegedly being a "great national occasion", they only wanted to invite people that they actually felt a personal liking for?

Edited at 2011-05-01 04:34 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2011-05-01 06:29 pm (UTC)
But the fact that they feel a personal liking for Thatcher and Major, but not for Blair and Brown is telling, don't you think?

There were a lot of Tory politicians at the wedding, while the only Labour ones were Miliband and the Labour leader in Wales.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ingenious76
2011-05-01 06:44 pm (UTC)
Yes. It tells me they don't like them.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ingenious76
2011-05-01 03:49 pm (UTC)
As I recall, the Blairs weren't invited to the wedding of the Earl and Countess of Wessex either. I suspect her Maj was probably worried that Blair would try and stand up in Westminster Abbey and deliver a money spinning lecture.

Edited at 2011-05-01 03:49 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ron_broxted
2011-05-01 04:03 pm (UTC)
Or that Cherie (whom I like) would shout "Smash Bourgoise Revisionism"
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2011-05-01 04:13 pm (UTC)
The Wessex marriage could plausibly be presented as a family affair. This, by contrast, was- whatever they said about it- a great national occasion. It's hard not to see the omission of Blair and Brown (don't forget Brown) as a calculated snub to the Labour party.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ingenious76
2011-05-01 04:20 pm (UTC)
Due to the current economic climate, who could possibly forget him?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: airstrip
2011-05-01 05:41 pm (UTC)
One of my roommates watched the whole wedding. I found the whole thing rather ghastly. I especially dislike seeing members of the British royal family because they all seem to have that smoothed-over look which is the tell-tale sign of a shallow gene pool.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2011-05-01 06:32 pm (UTC)
If William weren't a prince nobody would be calling him "handsome". He has a lumpy Hanoverian face- highly reminiscent of his less than glorious ancestor George III
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: airstrip
2011-05-01 06:44 pm (UTC)
Thank god. I feared I may be alone in thinking this. What about Diana? I thought she had a wretched face as well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2011-05-01 09:23 pm (UTC)
She was no great beauty. If she'd been a poor girl no-one would have made a fuss about her.

Most of the people who pass for "great beauties" only do so because they're rich.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: solar_diablo
2011-05-01 09:55 pm (UTC)
I'd read somewhere that President Obama didn't receive an invitation to William and Kate's wedding because it was not a state affair. President Reagan was invited to Charles and Diana's wedding for that reason, but couldn't attend because he was recovering from an assassination attempt.

Unfortunately, the source didn't explain what made one a state affair and the other not. But would that explain why Blair and Brown were not invited?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2011-05-02 08:06 am (UTC)
What exactly constitutes a State affair? I think they're making this stuff up on the hoof.

I read this morning that Blair and Brown were black-balled by Charles and Camilla. I guess they haven't forgiven Blair for his line about the "people's princess", but I can't think what Brown ever did to displease them.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: michaleen
2011-05-02 11:49 am (UTC)
As others have noted, our president and vice president were likewise snubbed. Not too terribly surprising, I think, given the political dynamics of the world, today.

Over here, the wealthy elite are waging open economic warfare on the poor and middle class. Aside from what little cover the faux-populist Tea Party provides, they are not even trying to hide it. The Tories, at the behest of their masters, are slavering to do the same over there. It does not take much effort to imagine which side the Windsors support.
(Reply) (Thread)