Will Cherie Blair attack Royal Family?
The former self-styled First Lady of Britain, Cherie Blair, is to write her memoirs. The book is said to have attracted a £1.5m ($3m) advance from a British publisher and could make even more in America.
Cherie Blair grovelling to the King of Norway
The volume, Cherie Blair: The Autobiography is timed for publication in October 2008, just before the Labour Party Conference. Speculation has it that she’ll go hammer and tongs for her arch-enemy, Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
However, it’s thought likely she will also attack the Royal Family. Her republican sympathies made life difficult for the Queen and Prince Philip over the past ten years, and they were probably relieved to see the back of her when Tony Blair recently resigned.
She relentlessly refused to curtsey to Her Majesty even though she was pictured grovelling to the King of Norway outside 10 Downing Street (see picture). Her speciality was openly yawning at Royal occasions. The annual weekend at Balmoral was said to be “bloody” by those who witnessed it.
The Queen is reported to have described her as “hectoring and aloof” when she turned up at functions, and Prince Philip could hardly bring himself to speak to her at all.
Cherie’s relationship with the proud Princess Anne was not much better. “That bitch”, Ms Blair called her after a Buckingham Palace party.
The book will be welcomed by gossip-mongers, those who love to hate, and especially anyone waiting for Cherie Blair to fly her true colours unimpeded by Downing Street protocol.
It should be a “bloody” affair.
Former First Ladies here in the US have written back-biting memoirs and it only made them appear small and petty. Attacking the Royal Family will probably get Cherie Blair ten seconds of fame. I would hope, after ten years at Downing Street, Mrs. Blair would have learned that the Queen always triumphs in the end!
By Arthur on September 20th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
And she’s not even First Lady, Arthur. THAT is the Queen herself.
By John on September 20th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Well in that case, John, “Off with her head” (Cherie’s head, not QEII)!
By Arthur on September 20th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
If Cherie Blair behaved with such blatant disrespect to members of the Royal Family, she deserves the bad reputation she has, John. My question is why did not her husband control the inappropriate behavior of his wife? She is entitled to have her qrivate opinions, but as the wife of the Prime Minister, she is expected to behave in a respectful, gentile manner befitting her husband’s position. As for her ‘tell-all’ book, will anyone really be interested in what she has to say if she has made herself such a pariah? It sounds to me as if she was very badly brought up.
By Gigi on September 20th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Oops–typo.
I meant to type “private.”
By Gigi on September 20th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Gigi, “respectful, gentile” are not words that remotely apply to Cherie Blair, who is noted for her voracious greed and nastiness.
When invited to “take a few items” from an Australian store as a gift, she rushed around picking up as many expensive pieces as she could, said to be 62. She was later prevailed upon to pay for them to save the Prime Minister’s face. What a trollop!
By John on September 20th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Gigi, sometimes good breeding skips a generation. Maybe that’s what happened with Cherie Blair?
By Arthur on September 20th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Trollop, John? I don’t suppose you will ever be mistaken as an admirer of Cherie Blair!
By Arthur on September 20th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Sometimes I have to express myself, Arthur.
By John on September 20th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
She sounds as if she is very insecure and self-centered, John. Not at all the sort of person you want to be married to the Prime Minister. Frankly, I am shocked her husband endured such behavior from her. I also wonder what sort of role model she is for their children. Not at all what is wanted!
By Gigi on September 20th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
This is no offense but I’m wondering how many Americans know who Cherie Blair is and interested in reading her book…
By Mikado-watcher on September 20th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I would think that most Americans know who Tony Blair is. Cherie loves the limelight and the publicity, so if you have read anything about Tony Blair, there is a good chance you know that his wife is Cherie and is, let us say, “difficult.” Nevertheless, I doubt most Americans are terribly interested in her memoirs.
By Gigi on September 20th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Well, I’m going to be one of those who have to say that while the way she went about it might not be admirable, but for her to not feel that she had to kowtow to the Royal Family is. I know they are who they are - but what makes them “better”? They just don’t know how to handle someone who refuses to grovel and kiss their behinds. The fact that she curtsied to the King of Norway probably only had to do with the fact that he was on her turf and it was the least she could do.
The RF bored her. She appalled them. She doesn’t even care.
I have to say, good for her.
By On The Outside on September 20th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
I understand all you say, On the Outside, but when a woman and her husband have risen to a certain level in political society, there are expectations regarding conduct and discretion that are absolutely obligatory. Cherie Blair had to have known that. Further, whether she likes or dislikes the Royal Family personally has nothing to do with how she should have behaved in a social situation. To be insulting and rude to one’s host and hostess in their home is base behavior. If to no other Royal, Cherie Blair owes the Queen proper reverence and respect. The Queen has been sanctified at the High Altar, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, at her Coronation. She is not, because of this Rite, an ordinary human being. She rules by the Grace of God. I do not care if Cherie Blair is Catholic or Protestant, Jewish, Hindu or Moslem, that Rite should be enough to command her respect to the Sovereign who takes it, before God. I fear there is no excuse for Cherie Blair in this instance. Of course, that is my opinion, not written in stone!
As an American, there is neither dictate nor custom that compels me to curtsey to Queen Elizabeth II, should I ever be fortunate enough to meet her. Nevertheless, I would curtsey, I assure you, as deeply as my ancient knees allowed!
By Gigi on September 20th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Gigi, I wouldn’t be surprised if Cherie’s book does quite well here in the United States. During the Clinton presidency, the Blairs and Clintons were bosom buddies, cut from the same cloth in the eyes of many. That changed when President Bush arrived on the scene. It’s no secret Cherie disliked Bush immensely and she blamed Tony Blair’s plummeting popularity in Great Britian on Blair’s support of Bush and the Iraq war. Rightly or wrongly, I’m sure Americans are going to be interested to see what Cherie has to say about the two US Presidents who influenced some of Tony Blair’s foreign policy decisions during ten years at No. 10 Downing Street.
Now, if John can give us a sneak peak at what Cherie says about Presidents Clinton and Bush, and their wives, before the book gets published, we won’t have to buy it and line Cherie’s pockets with pounds, euros, dollars, whatever. It’s all up to you, John!
By Arthur on September 20th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Gigi, I can think of only one reason why Tony Blair would put up with Cherie’s outlandish behavior, but I can’t say it on such a respectable website!
By Arthur on September 20th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
I personally would never buy a book written by Cherie Blair. Anything you need to know was blatantly put out by her body language during her husbands tenure. As Gigi said as an American If I ever had the good fortune to meet HM, I too would curtsey as a matter of respect to her and her position, Not that it is required the only omission would be Cams. As John said the woman is a trollop and now she can go back under her rock and stay there.
By Trudie on September 21st, 2007 at 12:32 am
I am a little taken aback at the notion of Tony Blair being expected to “control” his wife. She is not his to control, but should have had the good sense to control herself.
By Mary on September 21st, 2007 at 1:45 am
Very true, Mary, but since Cherie evidently has no manners, I wondered why Tony Blair did not at least attempt to convince her to behave appropriately.
By Gigi on September 21st, 2007 at 2:26 am
Gigi, an intelligent woman shouldn’t have to be convinced to behave appropriately, especially when the woman’s husband is Prime Minister of England!
By Arthur on September 21st, 2007 at 2:35 am
Very true, Arthur, which is precisely what makes me conclude that Cherie is neither intelligent nor well brought up.
By Gigi on September 21st, 2007 at 2:51 am
Wow, you guys are awfully full of hate!
Two comments:
1. She wasn’t the “self-styled First Lady of Britain”, she was for most purposes the de facto First Lady. She should be considered a member of the same class as Hilary, Laura, Aline, and Laureen.
2. Gigi, it’s partially because of the Queen’s status in the CoE that Cherie’s husband had to wait until he resigned to convert to Catholicism. That’s at least one good reason for her to dislike HM.
By ClassyCanuck on September 21st, 2007 at 4:45 am
ClassyCanuck, I am a devout Roman Catholic myself, and the Church teaches us not to surrender to resentment and dislike, especially in matters that pertain to God and the Faith. In fact to do so is a serious sin. What good did Cherie think she was doing by behaving disrespectfully to the Queen? The Queen did not make the law that concerns Anglican dominance and bars Catholics from the Succession. That came into being through King Henry VIII and the Parliament has upheld it ever since. It isn’t right and it isn’t fair, but she is blaming the wrong person. The Queen can’t do anything about it even if she wanted to. Furthermore, I do not know Cherie Blair and I certainly do not hate or dislike her. Neverthless, her behavior is inappropriate.
By Gigi on September 21st, 2007 at 5:14 am
I don’t know very much about Cherie and her dealings with the royals but i do know the press hated her and reported everything they could to undermine her.
For an intelligent woman and she is; she is a leading QC in employment law in Britian and serves as a magistrate sometimes, ie as a judge, She seemed not to have a clue how she was perceived and was a little like a bull in a china shop. I would say that the Queen and she were so far apart in outlook that they just could not even see where the other was coming from.
However while everybody should be respectful to the Queen as a head of state, it was even more incumbant on Cherie to be respectful, not only because she was the prime ministers wife but because she she should have understood the office and what it stands for. After all she is Queens Counsel, by its very title she is a servant to the queen and for her not to give HM due regard is disgraceful. Further, to be rude in somebody’s house esp the Queen’s is appalling and shows an exaggerated notion of ones own importance.
By Eliza on September 21st, 2007 at 10:08 am
Outside, as the wife of the Prime Minister she is expected to show courtesy to the office of Head of State, which is held by the Queen. She’s allowed to dislike the Queen personally, but not to show disrespect to the office. Would an American President’s wife be allowed to trample on the flag?
Many in Blair’s retinue referred to him as Head of State — another outrage. He was Head of Government. The Queen represents the country on ceremonial occasions and the vast majority of us don’t want politicians in that role. The separation of ceremony from policymaking avoids political controversy spilling over into State occasions and celebrations, something we do very well.
The problem with the Blairs was that they wanted the glamour and the glory as well as the power. Thankfully Gordon Brown is much more of a gentleman than Blair, and the excellent Sarah Brown, who is admired by everyone who knows her, puts the ghastly Cherie well into the shade.
By John on September 21st, 2007 at 10:36 am
1. She wasn’t the “self-styled First Lady of Britain”, she was for most purposes the de facto First Lady. She should be considered a member of the same class as Hilary, Laura, Aline, and Laureen.
Classy Cannuck, Cherie Blair was married to the Head of Government, not the Head of State, as were Hillary, Laura,, etc. They were genuine First Ladies. Cherie resented the fact that another woman outranked her so she and her circle took to calling her the First Lady. “Self-styled” is precisely right.
You’ll never hear Sarah Brown using the deliberately offensive term.
By John on September 21st, 2007 at 10:47 am
You’re right, Gigi, she’s a person with more chips on her shoulders than Harry Ramsden.*
She continually embarrassed the wimpish Prime Minister by setting up her business office in Number 10, by representing in court opponents of the Government, and by making gratuitous statements supporting suicide bombers, among many others.
She was a nightmare to all who had to work with her.
* Harry Ramsden used to run a famous chain of fish and chip eateries in the North of England.
By John on September 21st, 2007 at 10:54 am
As my name suggests I am a royalist recognising the Queen as Head of State and Prime Ministers Head of Government. The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy with the Queen in position by birth and Prime Ministers elected by the people. Queen Elizabeth has been on the throne since 1952 seeing off all British Prime Ministers since Sir Winston Churchill and all US Presidents since President Eisenhower with a wealth of national and intwernational knowledge uneaqualled in the UK and dare I say in the world. As the daughter of a much loved King George VI who saw this country through the horrors of WW2 and the London blitz - ask east enders what they think of the royals particularly of the late Queen Mother.
Phew sorry for the history lesson, but when the thought of such a self-opinionated bitch or trollop (as she is called by John) not having an atom of respect for Q it just makes me want to throw up. Did like your remarks about her being a QC Eliza. I am very proud of the system of government that we have, refined over centuries, we could have as an alternative Robert Mugabe! If I were priveledged to meet the Q I would give her a brief bow, not out of a feeling of subservience but out of much respect for personally and her position. She is of course subject to human frailty but to my knowledge has only made one mistake and that was her handling of the death of Dianna affair, but that is vorgotten by me now. There’s not a cat in hell’s chance of me buying Cherie’s book-Cat hell Cherie, a good choice of words that.
By Royalist on September 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
It’s no secret Cherie disliked Bush immensely…
Well then, she can’t be all bad.
By Aunt Pierre on September 21st, 2007 at 2:29 pm
How many of these incidents you’re holding against her actually happened, how many are taken from the script of The Queen, and how many are media spin?
Spouse of Head of Government strikes me as an awfully hard position to be in. You have all the responsibilities of a spouse of the Head of State with none of the rights.
I’m not saying she’s not a bitch, but it’s funny to see that if Kate is the hero of this website, Cherie is the villain.
By ClassyCanuck on September 21st, 2007 at 8:08 pm
In my opinion, Camilla is the RA villain, if such a designation there is.
Cherie doesn’t qualify because this site is Royal Anecdotes and Cherie is a commoner and not connected at all with the Foyal Family. That, however, does not prevent us from commenting on her. 
By Gigi on September 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 am
Classy, other spouses of Prime Ministers have always behaved with dignity — as does Sarah Brown. Cherie was a loose cannon from the off and continued to embarrass everyone for ten years. She even called Gordon Brown a liar as he was speaking to the Party Conference last year. A very unpleasant person.
By John on September 22nd, 2007 at 9:56 am
LOL Gigi - “Foyal Family” Sorry, just had to have a giggle at that typo!
Cherie can be considered a “bitch” for the way she treats people - I don’t deny that. People call Hillary Clinton that as well, but for different reasons. I’ve never seen Hillary treat people as badly - she can be very dignified - Cherie should take some lessons from her.
People say that Bill and Hillary, Tony and Cherie took to each other because they had so much in common. Both women are very bright women in their own rights - both with their own careers and both with very strong opinions. There are many people (Royal Family included) who just don’t know what to make of women like that. They are used to women being “a shadow”, one who compliments her husband in his job and is content to stay out of controversy.
Which type of “first lady” do I prefer - frankly - the kind like Hillary. Controversial perhaps - but boy, do they make you think. Cherie doesn’t have to be abrasive, and that’s something she has yet to learn.
By On the Outside on September 22nd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
“They are used to women being “a shadowâ€, one who compliments her husband in his job and is content to stay out of controversy.” Sounds like the definition of a Royal wife!
By Arthur on September 22nd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Hillary actually had a job in Clinton’s first administration attempting to create a healthcare system along the lines of Britain’s NHS. Cherie was not even First Lady, just a wife with a career of her own.
Cherie persuaded her dopey husband to pass the European Convention of Human Rights into British law as the Human Rights Act. Then she set up a business — Matrix Chambers — to make money from the Act. Would that be allowed in the US? I doubt it.
By John on September 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
John, how is your blood pressure? All this talk about Cherie Blair seems to have hit a nerve. Forget about her for the weekend.
By Arthur on September 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I plan to forget about her for the duration, Arthur.
By John on September 22nd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Now, now John… She’s is history now, so you can rest easy!
She sounds like of like Dick Cheney as far as ethics go (making money off of official policy)
By On the Outside on September 22nd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Not just official policy, Outside, but her own policy.
By John on September 22nd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
John, I don’t know the text of the European Conventinon for Human Rights but the title alone suggests to me it is a good thing.
As for representing opponents of the Government that demonstates all that is good in the English legal systam (and the Irish too as it derives from the English) : the independance of the Bar.
By Eliza on September 22nd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Eliza, it’s generally accepted in England that the Human Rights Act is not about “human rights” but about a Marxist equality agenda. It prevents us from deporting terrorists and feeds the greed of a vast army of so-called human rights lawyers, including Cherie Blair. It’s been a disaster in Britain, and will be repealed as soon as the Conservatives get in.
It won’t be missed.
By John on September 22nd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
She reminds me of Prince Philip: spouse of the Head of Foo, known as much for gaffs as anything else.
By ClassyCanuck on September 22nd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
*snort* my own quote: :She sounds like of like Dick Cheney” Like of like?
Jeebers… I need more sleep…
SORT of like! :-p
By On the Outside on September 23rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Now it all comes out…
By kit on September 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Talking of First Ladies, here’s a real one :
By John on October 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am
In think the term, “Lady,” is a stretch! If Hillary Clinton is elected President,
what visiting Head of State is going to trust his wife spending most of her time with First Spouse Bill? Can you imagine Bill Clinton giving Sarah Brown a White House tour of the Lincoln Bedroom? Perish the thought!!!!!
PS. John, I know Gordon Brown is not Head of State, but you get my point.
By Arthur on October 6th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Typo. Should read: I think the term, “Lady,” is a stretch.
By Arthur on October 7th, 2007 at 6:33 am
I think Bill should have taken some advice from Dennis Thatcher, a gentleman “Second” Lady, if ever there was one.
Pity the old boy is no longer with us.
By John on October 8th, 2007 at 9:00 am