Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush snubs Prince Charles
Mail on Sunday ^ | December 29, 2002 | Johnathan Oliver

Posted on 12/29/2002 5:56:53 PM PST by 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.'


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: AnAmericanMother
"Of course it was Edward VII rather than his son George V who changed the family name to Windsor. Fallout from First World War."

No, it was George V. Edward VII died in 1910, before WWI started.

61 posted on 12/29/2002 8:28:33 PM PST by Irene Adler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Iraq makes an ironclad case against Iraq, for those with open eyes.
62 posted on 12/29/2002 8:29:50 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

Comment #63 Removed by Moderator

To: Free State Four
In Scotland, I was told the reason they wear kilts is that the sound of zippers scares the sheep.
64 posted on 12/29/2002 8:33:18 PM PST by JonH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
However, privately he believes an attack on Iraq would lead to a devastating and permanent rift between the West and the Islamic world.

LOL! We're getting along just ducky right now....

65 posted on 12/29/2002 8:34:49 PM PST by Cogadh na Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
"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."

If Charles' position is being influenced by the new nitwit, Archbishop of Canterbury, I have no repect for him. This Dr. Rowan Williams is the one who recently made a comparison of the US foreign policy, to the three wise men in Bethlehem, "stirring up trouble" with Herod about a baby Jewish child, and causing countless Jewish infants to be killed. You see, according to Rowan, it was the "wise men" who caused the killing.

Both the clergy and the royalty need to be overthrown, IMHO.

66 posted on 12/29/2002 8:34:53 PM PST by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
that's why we had the american revolution...to get rid of royals


Taxation without representation ring a bell?
The royal family is an intregal part in bringing forth the liberty we experiance today. The freedom that Great Britan and her constitutional monarchy brought forth was the best example of liberty the westren world had seen since the fall of the polis. The ever changing face of England's history from the time of the normon conquest, through the act of Magna Carta, untill the revolution provided the founding fathers the very ideals of liberty that they cherished. They are the foremost of the Old world countries on the front of liberty, and the building block that our country is based on.
67 posted on 12/29/2002 8:36:32 PM PST by federalisthokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Irene Adler
Yeah, I know. It's late and I was too quick with the self-doubt and on the trigger finger. Shoulda let it stand. (That's how I mess up on exams too -- second thoughts are usually wrong!) There was a certain amount of anti-German sentiment before the war started, but it was indeed George who pulled the plug on "Wettin".

I think it was the Kaiser who quipped that he was going to the theater to see the "Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha".

68 posted on 12/29/2002 8:36:38 PM PST by AnAmericanMother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
"He hasn't made such a case, he's convinced a majority of 'Murricans', but not most of them."

Huh? I'm not sure exactly what you trying to say there, Fred. But I'm quite sure there is NOTHING he could do to convince you.

69 posted on 12/29/2002 8:37:30 PM PST by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: chookter
This Charles is important why?
70 posted on 12/29/2002 8:37:58 PM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
Tell me now that he never said that, please.

Would that I could, Anna.

71 posted on 12/29/2002 8:38:47 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: A Citizen Reporter
Believe it or not I'm trying to help him. He hasn't made a solid case.
72 posted on 12/29/2002 8:42:01 PM PST by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
I know it's from an urban legend site, but that was the first one that came up. I think most people believe this was a cellphone conversation that was really recorded.
73 posted on 12/29/2002 8:43:14 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
You are correct, this thread does need balance. Charles should stay home! However, some of the attackes here are about English Protestantism that rules "The Septured Isle" and is the basis for the American Religious Culture.
74 posted on 12/29/2002 8:46:22 PM PST by Blake#1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jws3sticks
What a Total Guy!, Barf totally.....

Who, me???

75 posted on 12/29/2002 8:48:40 PM PST by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Gee Fred, you'll forgive me if I find that the slightest disingenous?
76 posted on 12/29/2002 8:53:27 PM PST by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
I don't recall Prince Charles visiting during Clinton's eight years. Was he snubbed then, too?
77 posted on 12/29/2002 9:01:01 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
"and famously promised to defend all faiths on acceding to the Throne -"

a previous title was "defender of THE faith", which Charles has had changed (for himself).
78 posted on 12/29/2002 9:02:14 PM PST by Gal.5:1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mitchbert
Agreed! Some have said that looking at the history etc. in London and the shires would be just as much fun if the royals were defunct, but I think that the fact that Elizabeth Regina II actually lives and reigns makes the history come alive, and gives England a glorious heritage. Heck, Tolkein wrote the middle earth stuff partly to give Britain a mythology that he felt was lacking. This is similar. It helps to make Britain BRITAIN, and not 'Airstrip One'.
79 posted on 12/29/2002 9:17:53 PM PST by johnb838
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
This would not be a desirable visit at a sensitive time like this.'

Timing is everything.

80 posted on 12/29/2002 9:31:59 PM PST by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson