Bush snubs Prince Charles

Mail on Sunday ^ | December 29, 2002 | Johnathan Oliver

[ejdrapes]

Bush to Charles: we don't want you in USA
by JOHNATHAN OLIVER | Mail on Sunday | 19th December 2002

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.'

[AnAmericanMother]

We also are regular visitors to Britain (having kids too young to appreciate it has slowed us down for the last few years. But the youngest is almost old enough to enjoy it now, so we're heading back again.)

I really couldn't care less about the "Windsors" or Wettins/Wippers (their real surname until Geo. V took the name change plunge). They're actually just jumped-up transplanted Germans after all. (/deliberate Anglophile baiting, sorry, couldn't resist.) Poor Charles is suffering from "poor Bertie" syndrome, like Queen Victoria's son who was a bridesmaid for umpty-ump years and didn't get a real job until he was 60.

The first time we visited London after our marriage, my husband had never been to England. I had a wonderful time taking him to all my favorite spots in London - the Tower, Madame Tussaud's, Westminster Abbey (great extended conversation with one of the veteran guides, turned out he served in the same regiment as my dad), the Inns of Court, St. Paul's for Evensong, as many of Wren's churches as he could stand, the Tate (British artist side), the British Museum for a quick dekko (you could spend a couple weeks there and only scratch the surface), the London dealer for Purdey's shotguns, etc. etc. . . . but it never crossed my mind to waste our time going to stare at the Royals.

[AnAmericanMother]

We also are regular visitors to Britain (having kids too young to appreciate it has slowed us down for the last few years. But the youngest is almost old enough to enjoy it now, so we're heading back again.)

I really couldn't care less about the "Windsors" or Wettins/Wippers (their real surname until Geo. V took the name change plunge). They're actually just jumped-up transplanted Germans after all. (/deliberate Anglophile baiting, sorry, couldn't resist.) Poor Charles is suffering from "poor Bertie" syndrome, like Queen Victoria's son who was a bridesmaid for umpty-ump years and didn't get a real job until he was 60.

The first time we visited London after our marriage, my husband had never been to England. I had a wonderful time taking him to all my favorite spots in London - the Tower, Madame Tussaud's, Westminster Abbey (great extended conversation with one of the veteran guides, turned out he served in the same regiment as my dad), the Inns of Court, St. Paul's for Evensong, as many of Wren's churches as he could stand, the Tate (British artist side), the British Museum for a quick dekko (you could spend a couple weeks there and only scratch the surface), the London dealer for Purdey's shotguns, etc. etc. . . . but it never crossed my mind to waste our time going to stare at the Royals.

[Centurion2000]

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

It was my understanding that he would never be King and that the Throne would pass to Prince William. Is this wrong ?

[AnAmericanMother]

Dang. My excuse THIS time is that we are victims of the DirecTV disaster . . . it is running S-L-O-W tonight.

I will post this and leave it alone. Sorry.

[txhurl]

Well, we colonists have M. Thatcher as a reference point. We don't ask you guys to take the Hilton sisters or the remaining Kennedys seriously, either.

[Ole Okie]

the truth is we cannot risk C pirouetting around in a skirt on W's ranch here in Texas.

Question:

Are you talking about "C" = Prince Chaz, or

"C" = Camilia?

I suppose both of them could pirouette about in a skirt.

Always wondered about those darned Scots, anyway.

Although Chaz is a Welchman since he is their "Prince".

[Mr. Mojo]

Chuckie Boy should just stick to what he does best -- play with tampons.

[jws3sticks]

Here's Charlie, the total jerk of our times.

What a Total Guy!, Barf totally.....

[mitchbert]

Charles will assume the throne upon the death of HM QEII. There is an issue with him marrying Camilla Parker Bowles, but since Diana is dead this I believe is more a matter of optics than royal or religious convention, but I could be wrong. Wills gets the throne after his Dad, one way or another.

[AnAmericanMother]

THAT is a rumor. It would certainly be almost unprecedented . . . the only abdication since medieval times was Edward VIII, who of course pulled a similar stunt to marry Mrs. Warfield Simpson. Attitudes towards marrying a divorced woman have of course changed a great deal, and Charles himself is free to marry. And Camilla is not a twice-divorced notorious American social butterfly. All her scandal is discreet and entirely a home-grown product.

[txhurl]

We are referring to Charles.

We expect Cam to continue dressing in potato sacks.

[mitchbert]

I am reading Lady Thatcher's "The Downing Street Years" as we speak. Had it for a while, just getting to it on "the list."

Cheers, eh!

[AnAmericanMother]

Correction here before somebody nails me.

Of course it was Edward VII rather than his son George V who changed the family name to Windsor. Fallout from First World War.

[Ciexyz]

Okay, I'll give Charles credit for his military service. He looked spiffy in his uniform in the Queen Mum's funeral walk.

[mitchbert]

Okay, I'll give Charles credit for his military service.

Not to mention that rumour has it that Andrew is no slouch of a chopper pilot.

Flew as bait in a Falklands battle, and no one ever suggested that it was just for show.

[Squantos]

Exactly....GW don't want no jug eared mommas boy on his porch at harvest time :o)

Stay Safe !

[AnnaZ]

Tell me now that he never said that, please.

[Fred Mertz]

The Bush administration, said the Whitehall official, believes the Prince is vehemently against war.

If Bush made an iron-clad case against Iraq, this wouldn't be happening. He hasn't made such a case, he's convinced a majority of 'Murricans', but not most of them.

[Irene Adler]

"It was my understanding that he would never be King and that the Throne would pass to Prince William. Is this wrong ?"

Yes, it's wrong. The throne has always passed to the eldest son and if there are no sons to the eldest daughter (recently changed to the eldest child, son or daughter). Charles would have to decline formally for it to pass directly to his son rather than to himself.

[Servant of the Nine]

Too funny. I think the guy who drives his own truck around his ranch in Texas might not have a whole lot in common with the guy who wants to come back in his next life as a tampon. Just a guess, though.

Dubya partied hardy before he met Mrs. Bush and changed his ways. I think he understands a good time, even if he has hung up his personal jersey.
I don't think he would ever understand the way the Prince treated his wife.

So9