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 last
To: Chancellor Palpatine
Charles is the sort of swishy, inbred, effete fool that results from having a family tree with no branches.

Brings to mind a little close-order swanning about.

81 posted on 12/29/2002 10:04:47 PM PST by lorrainer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
I don't believe this cause Bush is always hosting heads of state, etc who do not share the Bush administration's policy on Iraq.
82 posted on 12/29/2002 10:22:35 PM PST by not-an-ostrich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

I've heard that he said this, yes.

Don't remember any of the details though.

I have to assume that he was really drunk when he shared this with us.

83 posted on 12/30/2002 5:46:29 AM PST by DWSUWF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DWSUWF
What happened was that he and Ms. Bowles were having a private cellphone conversation which was intercepted by someone and the conversation was made public. In Chuck's defense, he never intended his comments to go further than the person he was talking to. Probably back in the days of analog cellphones, before conversations were digitized and could be just picked out of the ether. Bad luck for Charles, I would say.
84 posted on 12/30/2002 7:42:27 AM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
Is there anything more ridiculously more irrelevent(sp?) than British Royalty?
85 posted on 12/30/2002 7:43:38 AM PST by Tigercap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
I thought President Bush's October 2002 speech laid out quite a solid case. In the event you're interested:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
86 posted on 12/30/2002 10:56:54 AM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
I stand corrected regarding Chas 'sharing' this craziness.

It is still, however, seriously disturbed thinking.

87 posted on 12/30/2002 3:27:12 PM PST by DWSUWF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: koax
"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."

There are no doubt a very large number of them that are more talented, but sadly, there are very few who have the money or the clout or the money to buy the clout, so to say that the government is truly representative of the people is just plain silly. Our government hasn't represented the average person in generations.

88 posted on 12/30/2002 3:48:18 PM PST by sweetliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DWSUWF
Agreed.
89 posted on 12/31/2002 7:36:19 AM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Prince charles stay home, America does not want you here, you wimp...


90 posted on 11/18/2005 12:34:56 AM PST by GaPeach2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


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