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

[springydaffs]

Seems a bit of an obvious snub

You do have a point there, seeker.

Sorry meditrina but that's all just flannel. The Palace knew full well it was a snub to the Labour party and chose to do it anyway, even though the convention is Royalty is above party politics. Quite wrong.

It is vital in a constitutional monarchy that the Royal family does not take sides politically, nor appear to take sides.

(I'd imagine from his pronouncements Charles would be closest in affiliation to the Greens or a Lib Dem - apparently that Aston Martin Wills drove runs on left-over wine from all those Clarence House and Buckingham Palace receptions. )

Because Cameron had a say in the matter and he was peevish and didn''t want Blair and Brown there. Only wanted Conservatives - preferring Major and Thatcher.

I don't buy the 'Knights of the Garter' theory.

Thank you Meditrina.

Good point, animation. I think Cameron displayed his rather childish spitefulness when he tried to stop Brown getting the IMF job - his comments were so unnecessarily nasty.

Yes - I loved the detail about the wine guzzling car!

I think the Knights of the Garter bit is accurate - the Palace is very protocol driven. None of the ex-officio incurred was invited on strength of a previous position. Or are you saying they should have been on the "family and friends" list?

Unless of course there's something about the "plenty" of former office holders (referred to above) who have been invited without a second role. Who are they?

edam Making Gordon Brown head of the IMF would be like putting a fox in charge of a henhouse.

Gordon Brown ruined the economy. OK, some Labour head-in-sand types don't believe it, but it is true (and playing devil's advocate, even if it weren't true, Cameron certainly believes it wholeheartedly). Why would he trust someone who he believes ruined the economy with a top economic job?

The Royal Wedding is different. It is purely symbolic, and Blair/Brown should have been invited, for all their sins.

But I strongly doubt that the reason they weren't invited is because the Royal Family is secretly Tory - as I said above, Charles probably leans Lib Dem. It is because they - especially Blair - pissed off the Royals over the years - but that isn't a good enough excuse, frankly. I am disappointed that the Palace didn't rise above it. What difference would it have made, really?

To play devil's advocate on the IMF issue one more time - imagine a parallel universe where Ed Balls is now Chancellor, and Ed Miliband is PM (I know, I know - but this is fiction).

Would they heartily recommend George Osborne for the head of the IMF? Somehow, I doubt it.

Anyway, I would like to think it was because they are two of the most self-serving men on the planet.

However the idea that it was because of the foxhunting ban and other anti-horse legislation does appeal to me.

It was a deliberate snub - see these wise words.

The Royal Family are petty and spiteful, but I think they have come out of it worse than Blair (who probably was bothered) and Brown (who probably wasn't).

And your analogy only works, lfn, if George Osborne had been Chancellor and PM, which thankfully he wasn't. Or we would have been in an even worse state...

I've looked at the link and it seems to be mere assertion - no evidence.

Could I ask again about these "plenty" of politicians who were there (solely as ex-office holders, no other role), as mentioned by a poster above. For it is only in comparison to them that there could have been a snub. And that would be evidence.

If it looks like a snub and walks like a snub......

Seeker: that supports everything I've been saying.

If it looks like a correct, protocol driven situation with no snub, then it's no snub. Thanks!

Now - leaving platitudes aside, any information on the plentiful political ex-office holders who were there? Or are we clutching at straws in the hope of maintaining an empty conspiracy theory?

Well, either it;s a snub or it proves that the Roayl family are so stupid that they didn;t realize that, regardless of how correct according to protocol leaving them out was, it would look like a snub to most people in the country who have ever written a wedding guest list!

Or it shows that they are so out of touch and/or arrogant that they don;t care how it looks to the proles!

If the royal household preferred its politicians to be right-leaning, Blair would most certainly have been invited.

Anyway, I thought left-wingers would sooner spend the afternoon gargling with sand than curtsying before the Saxe-Coburg family?

Sand, you say? Can I have tonic in mine?

Well, yes, Swedes, that's true until it comes to self-advancement. Then all bets are off. You meet some useful contacts at these Royal do's, some of them are loaded.

How can it be possible be ok to invite a 'crown prince' of yugoslavia, unrecognised monarch of a now non-existent country which in any case ditched its maonarchy decades ago and not two living British PMs? I have little time for Blair and Brown and the potocol argument is no doubt technically correct, but everyone with half a brain can see that it was meant to be a snub and that simply has to be unacceptable in an institution which is meant to be above politics, no matter what one's view of the monarchy is.

The Yugoslav Royal family are cousins of the Queen, live in UK (or at least princess Katherine and her husband do) and are present at many Royal events, so there is a clear and on-going connexion.

The explanation is clear and backed by evidence. No-one on the official guest list was invited solely on the basis of a former role. Brown hasn't commented, but Blair chose to make a statement and said he is totally happy with the situation. Does this mean you are taking this as evidence that he chooses to tell lies publicly when it suits him to present a particular viewpoint? He could have just stayed quiet, couldn't he?

So Brown ruined the economy. I think I might have lived in a totally different country as you then, as I remember quite a few yrs of economic growth when I was living in the UK and changes in society were tangible, at least to a foreigner like me.

Sorry for hijack btw, I still thik that Cherie would make a great wedding guest.

John Rentoul wrote an article on the snub here

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-revenge-we-had-to-draw-the-line-somewhere-2277354.html

All the talk of "protocol" and "knights of the garter", and "not a state occasion(!)" are clearly poor covers for what was clearly a snub and quite an appalling one

They weren't invited because the Royal Family are Tory bastards to a man/woman and they don;t give a monkey's what "we" think of them because they don't give a monkey's about "us". And anyone who thinks differently is having the wool pulled over their eyes by spin and PR.

Which on this particular occasion slipped. Becuase they have such contempt for us that they thought we would swallow this "Knight of the Garter" stuff. Which makes no sense. Protocol might say that Kinghts of the Garter have to be invited - it doesn't say that if you haven't got a K then you mustn't be invited!

How is it ok for our Head of State to invite 'royal' guests from a non-existent country? Our country does not recognise the 'royal family of Yugoslavia nor do the people of the former Yugoslavia. It's an insult to the people of both countries/regions. Yes, they may have been asked in a personal capacity, but again, the Queen is meant to be above politics and should not be pandering to the fantasies of these non royals. I doubt all the ambassadors of various nations were asked because they were personal friends so there was obvioulsy some official inviting going on. This is a separate issue from Blair/Brown, of course, but shows the oddity of some of the choices they made. Whatever the protocal re Brown/Blair, it was a poor lapse of judgement and yes, I would say exactly the sme thing if Thatcher or Major had been left off the list.

Oh and Blair saying he was ok with the decision is utterly beside the point. It was still a shabby snub which does not reflect well on them or on our country.

if Blair wanted to indicate disapproval, all he needed to do was stay silent. You seem to be suggesting that he has no difficulty with lying on the record.

Whether optional or not, Knights of the Garter were invited.

As no-one's come up with any example, no-one who is not a current office holder was invited ex-officio. Should they have invited, for example, all living former heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force?