To wonder why Blair and Brown weren't invited to the wedding

[springydaffs]

Seems a bit of an obvious snub

TB stepped in and did a good job in favour of the public - not the princes, whilst he kept the public happy he upset the princes and the royals - you can't please everyone all the time and that time it shoudl have been more important to keep the princes happy and spin to the public that was what was happening

Are there any members of the royal family the Blairs haven't offended? [chmm]

When you say that one has to curtsey to the Queen, presumably you don't have to?

Because the entire Royal family are Tory bastards?

Just a wild guess.........!

what are they going to do to you if you don't curtsey? Lock you in the tower? Put you in prison? You can't be forced to curtsey or bow

The Royals aren't Tories. Prince Charles is famously "liberal" on most social issues. The Queen and Margaret Thatcher had a famously prickly relationship (though they patched it up towards the end I think).

And Red Ed was invited - it's not as if Labour weren't represented.

Nevertheless, all living ex-PMs should have been invited.

Not a snub in my opinion. It wasn't a state occasion so no reason for them to be there.

springdaffs: I think there were a couple of threads this has been discussed on, but the only one I could find was this one (they're all beginning to overlap in my memory now!)

They could not avoid inviting Ed Milliband.

But no ex Labour PMs, no Labour Elder Statesmen - of course it was a deliberate snub.

And Charles famous' liberal' views just means that he is slightly to the left of Atilla the Hun!.

There were a lot of politicians there for not a state occasion, loads of far more obscure politicians Theresa may, Jeremy hunt, Ken Clarke, William Hague, nick clegg. I think it's obviously a snub.

Well, obviously one doesn't have to do anything! It is just basic etiquette.

longfingernails I am staggered that anyone would think Prince Charles is liberal!!! Believing in quack doctors is hardly the sign of a liberal and I can't think of anything else?

Maybe the Blairs and the Browns aren't too bothered by this. Isn't Cherie a republican?

His public pronouncements (rare though they are) have always seemed to me to be more in tune with the Green Party than anyone else.

They didn't have to and they didn't want to? So they didn't.

It wasn't a state wedding though, regardless of who else was invited. I can't remember why it wasn't a state wedding - does that have to be next in line or on the throne to get a state wedding?

I think Cherie probably also upset them by talking about shagging Tony at Balmoral.

It was a total snub and showed a real spite despite their claims to superior inbreeding.

But ultimately so what? The royal family just isn't really Britain's biggest problem right now. They're just posh oiks really.

Eeuw Beaver that has just upset ME!!

It's rather petty. The Queen - the entire royal family - should be above party politics.

So William doesn't like Blair, big deal. I'm sure he's not best mates with a lot of the heads of state who were there, either.

thank you meditrina.

TB only stepped in after Diana's death because the 'firm' didn't quite grasp that the nation was turning against not just the royals but the queen herself - [cshock]. The queen has always been popular and respected by the public but her reluctance to show any outward sign of respect towards Diana had the public baying for blood, which was previously unheard of. TB stepped in to forcefully point out that the public were not impressed with her maj for doing nothing and to urge her to do something, anything. It was an act that protected the monarchy apart from anythig

so no shagging at balmoral then?

i wondered if it was because they banned hunting

Its why their youngest son was conceived. Cherie was too embarrassed to pack condoms as she knew a valet would unpack her case. Then they couldn't control themselves for one or two nights.

I think shagging is fine, boasting about it in the gutter press is probably frowned upon.