HERE's a couple of winners. The first one is the Prince and the other is his not-Consort:
Now THOSE are ugly horses! (trust me. they're Hugly.)
Posted on 12/29/2002 5:56:53 PM PST by ejdrapes
Bush to Charles: we don't want you in USA Prince Charles has abandoned an official visit to the United States because the White House has signalled he is not welcome. The snub by President Bush - which is causing a behind-the-scenes diplomatic furore both in London and Washington - has been prompted by the Prince's deeply held reservations about Bush's determination to wage war with Iraq. The Mail on Sunday reveals today that senior figures in the Bush administration have indicated that it would be 'very unhelpful' for the planned royal visit to proceed. They fear Charles's arrival will coincide with the start of a full-scale invasion of Iraq - and that the Prince's opposition to the war would cause huge embarrassment. It is understood the trip has now been cancelled on the advice of British diplomats. A senior Whitehall official confirmed last night: 'A week-long tour was in the diary for February or March 2003. But the Prince has been politely informed his views on the current crisis might not go down well.' And a Washington insider admitted: 'This would not be a desirable visit at a sensitive time like this.' The Bush administration, said the Whitehall official, believes the Prince is vehemently against war. And the Foreign Office now fears his visit would be hijacked by US anti-war factions to drive a wedge between America and Britain and undermine Tony Blair's steadfastly pro-Washington stance. Blair's policy is already being criticised within the Cabinet. International-Development Secretary Clare Short yesterday embarrassed Downing Street when she said: 'An all-out war that causes devastating suffering to the people of Iraq would be wrong.' The Prince got on well with George W's father when he and former President George Bush recalled the Anglo-US wartime partnership six decades ago at the rededication of the American Air Museum in Cambridgeshire last September. But it is now clear that the people Charles was due to meet at the White House, including President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, do not want to listen to his anti-war message. Nor do they trust Charles to toe the Washington line when confronted by the world's media. Downing Street shared Washington's reservations and it is understood that the Foreign Office told the Prince of President Bush's concerns. 'The Foreign Office organises these trips with St James's Palace,' said a royal aide. 'It has been very negative about this tour after consultations with Washington. 'The fact is that British public opinion is divided on this issue. Neither Washington nor Downing Street wants the Prince to reflect that.' Prince Charles, who has been an outspoken advocate of tolerance towards Islam - he recently held high-profile meetings with the British Muslim community and famously promised to defend all faiths on acceding to the Throne - has never publicly expressed antiwar views. Openly attacking Government policy would provoke a constitutional crisis. However, privately he believes an attack on Iraq would lead to a devastating and permanent rift between the West and the Islamic world. Charles believes his views mirror those of the British people - a majority of whom oppose war on Iraq. His position also echoes the sentiments of Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams who, in his Christmas broadcast, made a thinly veiled attack on Tony Blair's determination to wage war on Saddam. In the spring, Charles usually pays a high-profile foreign visit and was said to have been particularly looking forward to America. His last trip there six years ago was virtually ignored by the US media which gave an ecstatic reception to his ex-wife, Diana, Princess of Wales, who made a solo visit the same year. Subsequent tours had been pencilled in but were cancelled after the September 11 outrage and again after the Queen Mother's death. Iraq is not the only issue which would have caused friction between the Prince and his American hosts. Charles has made no secret of his loathing of the 'Wild West' free-market capitalism favoured by Bush. 'Business is at a crossroads,' said the Prince on his previous US visit. 'Does it enter new markets like the cowboys of the frontier? Or does it take a rather more sophisticated approach which leads to continued rather than short-term profit?' A spokeswoman for St James's Palace said: 'The Prince goes on two major tours annually. The places that he goes to are decided by the Foreign Office. It is not our decision.' A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'We cannot confirm the Prince's plans so far ahead of time.'
by JOHNATHAN OLIVER | Mail on Sunday | 19th December 2002
HERE's a couple of winners. The first one is the Prince and the other is his not-Consort:
Now THOSE are ugly horses! (trust me. they're Hugly.)
Well, of course. A man who has never held a job in his life, is dumber than a bag of hammers, and who has untold riches, can easily hold those kinds of views.
LOL, you are killing me. BILLIONS of pounds?
Maybe if you say that every dollar spent by every tourist is spent only because of the existence of the royal family. Otherwise, there would be no reason to visit, I suppose.
I was there in 92,93(2x),94(2x),95 and 98 as a tourist. haven't been back because of the condition of my wallet. After seeing the Tower of London, and Windsor Palace, I never thought about the Royals. It's just a great place to spend a vacation.
3/4 of which is spent at Heathrowe, at the bar during a layover, on the way to somewhere (anywhere) else in Europe.
now, if we could only convince the american electorate that passing on electoral seats to wives and daughters is similar, we'd be better off.
after all, there are 280,000,000 people in this country; someone ought to have more talent than a gore, a bush, a carnahan, a clinton, etc.
Which could be seen whether or not Britain still had a monarchy today.
I have been a tourist there twice, and enjoyed my stay without seeing the royal family once. If Britain wants to pay them to be props, I really don't care. But they are the most expensive welfare family in the history of the world, and I think they are a huge bore.
Are these people for REAL?
Let's see...Charles "believes that an attack on Iraq would lead to a devastating and permanent rift between the West and the Islamic world, " but the "Islamic world's" attack on the United States prompts him to grovel to them by "promise[ing] to be the defender of "all faiths" when he gets on the throne"?
Leftists are nothing but hypocritical, snivelling little milquetoasts. In attempting to appear to stand for everything (but the majority view, of course, which they are reflexively against), they end up standing for nothing.
Before anyone goes off and calls Charles or for that matter Andrew whimpy, useless whatevers I would remind them that any suggestion of such with the military units these gentlemen served with might meet with some serious disagreement from the other individuals involved.
The net benefit of the Royal Family is very hard to calculate, but it ultimately is a result in the black. It's a part of the identity not only of Great Britain but also The Commonwealth. When HRH QEII comes over, the most eager folks to meet her are often the newest Canadians.
No harm, no foul. And we always have (at least in theory) the ability to petition Her Majesty to throw our pathetic Prime Minister out on his ear. May someone she would listen to communicate such.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.