Prince Andrew shoots from the hip on Iraq
It’s very hard to justify a Royal Family member criticizing a close ally’s foreign policy at any time. But when that country is the U.S. and he is about to travel the Southern states on a trade mission promoting British exports, it looks a lot like carelessness.
The Duke of York — Britain’s Special Trade Ambassador
The Duke of York will be meeting Southern business leaders who are mostly Republican politically and overwhelmingly support the policies of President Bush.
In an interview with the Herald Tribune newspaper, Andrew’s point was that the White House should have listened and learned more from Britain’s experiences of Empire and of similar insurgencies around the world.
He believes that the consequences of the Iraq war have led to a “healthy scepticism” toward Washington and a feeling of “why didn’t anyone listen to what was said and the advice that was given?”.
He reaffirmed that the U.S. is Britain’s number one ally but thought there were “occasions when people in the UK would wish that those in responsible positions in the U.S. might listen and learn from our experiences”.
The Duke claimed said that because of its imperial history, Britain had experienced much of what the U.S. is currently going through on the world stage.
“If you are looking at colonialism, if you are looking at operations on an international scale, if you are looking at understanding each other’s culture, understanding how to operate in a military insurgency campaign, we have been through them all,” he said.
“We’ve won some, lost some, drawn some. The fact is there is quite a lot of experience over here which is valid and should be listened to.”
This begs the question of how much experience of Empire is to be found among members of the current Labour Government, an anti-colonial, anti-military party, which refuses properly to equip our forces while sending them to fight two foreign wars without sound military objectives. Americans might rightly say, “physician heal thyself”.
Naturally, this has drawn a torrent of criticism from Republican institutes, like the Heritage Foundation, as well as from a wide spectrum of opinion. Andrew may have been fortunate that his comments were publicized on Super Tuesday, which has to some extent drowned them out. Imagine the effect on a slow news day.
Airmiles Andy seems to have morphed into Shot-Foot Andy.
No party in the U.S., Republican or Democratic, “overwhelmingly” supports the policies of George W. Bush. His approval ratings are dismal across the board. HRH may get some public rebuke, but privately, he’ll meet a lot of Americans of both parties who agree with him, and might even appreciate that he has a mind of his own and is able to speak it.
You Brits so often criticize your Royal Family for being irrelevant, yet then also criticize them when they conduct themselves as anything but. Pity, because they are the only “leaders” in Britain who most Americans will have heard of and might pay attention to. (Miliband who? Straw who?) I don’t think the people of Britain realize how much its Royal Family members are respected abroad (perhaps only for their place in history and their celebrity status, but respect is respect, regardless of its impetus). At the same time, few Americans will know who Gordon Brown is, or would care what he has to say about American foreign policy.
Instead of encouraging your Royal Family to be cartoon figures and paper cut-outs at bakery openings in Wiltshire, you might learn to take better advantage of their stature abroad. Come the age of the British Republic the world will note, probably with surprise, just how small your island nation is.
By Dan on February 6th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Although the Republican leadership and some right-leaning publications may criticize him, the majority of the American public is against the war and routinely criticize our government’s handling of it (hence Bush’s popularity in the 20s). I’d be shocked, given the prevailing feeling in the US right now, if the mainstream US media give him a hard time over these statements. As far as learning from history, we have Vietnam looming over us and the comparisons are strong and negative.
By ed1 on February 6th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Well, Dan, in normal times I would agree with you, but we have a broadly republican (anti-Monarchist) government in Britain now and Royals have to stay on the ceremonial side of the line.
Andrew’s real misdemeanour in my book was probably to scupper his delicate mission, in which he has to appeal to both sides of the spectrum, by entering into U.S. politics at a delicate moment for everyone. Diplomacy comes in many packages but, as Talleyrand said to budding French Ambassadors, “Above all, Gentlemen, no enthusiasm”.
By John on February 6th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I disagree with Dan. I have learned not to place much credence in polls, nor in those media companies who are mouthpieces for the Democratic party. Americans, no matter what their politics, do not like to hear criticism of their government from foreigners. As for the British Royal Family being respected in America, I agree that Queen Elizabeth II is indeed held in high regard here. I would doubt that regard extends to the entire Royal Family and I am certain that it does not extend to Charles. The material point is that for diplomacy to succeed, there must be one person who speaks for Britain and that person most assuredly should not be Prince Andrew. The Prime Minister should speak for Britain on these types of issues. I also do not agree that most Americans do not know who the key politicians are in Great Britain. Americans on the whole are well-informed and if there is one foreign country they are familiar with, it is Great Britain.
By Gigi on February 6th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
True, Gigi, the mission of Monarchy is to unite and heal wounds, not to open up chasms of controversy. This serves us very well, and is not generally present in other countries. It’s a noble calling and should be relished by those who inherit it, as it has been by the Queen.
Some, though, are simply not up to the job.
By John on February 6th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
My guess, John, is that Prince Andrew got a firm rebuke from his Father, the Duke of Edinburgh, or perhaps even from the Queen. While Prince Philip has been known to say things that make the Foreign Office wince, I doubt he would be pleased with Prince Andrew’s ill-chosen and ill-timed remarks. I also imagine that the Queen is twirling her wedding ring around on her finger, which is said to be what she does when she is truly annoyed. That said, the British Monarchy has indeed served Britain well, which is the reason that they are still on the throne! So many others have fallen by the wayside. Queen Elizabeth II is a remarkable, magnificent monarch who has done so much for Britain and is a great blessing to the Nation.
By Gigi on February 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
You are almost certainly right, Gigi.
By John on February 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Watched Fox News lately? “Those media companies” are no more the mouthpieces of one political party than Americans are of only one opinion. We can agree to disagree on that.
I don’t read Andrew’s comments as particularly harsh criticisms of what was, after all, the policy of both the American and British governments. Rather they are a reading of history that many Americans and Britons share. True, many Americans supported the Iraqi invasion at the time (mostly due to the way Bush-Cheney spun it), but I don’t know very many who believe it was (or is yet) conducted competently.
I agree with Sir Digby Jones, the British trade minister, who was quoted in the NY Times saying about Andrew, “He gets in to see people because he is the son of the queen. The U.K. would be foolish not to use this.†The fact that Andrew’s comments were carried in the NY Times is testament to his stature.
As for Charles, he did dine at the White House with President and Mrs. Bush in 2005 and received quite a reception in NY when he accepted his environmental award from Al Gore. Brits may scoff at him, but he has admirers in the US. Indeed, for years Britons were making fun of him talking to his plants and such, when all along he was dead right about the blight of urban architecture, the benefits of organic farming and the perilous state of the global environment. On the latter, Charles has represented Britain as at the forefront of the most prominent social/scientific/political movement of the 21st century. Do you still believe he should have kept his mouth shut and eaten his Tesco biscuits like a good little prince? What a shame.
True, Gordon Brown is the rightful voice for British policy. But the power of a voice is measured by who and how many are listening. The average Briton may prefer to restrict the Royals to the odd hospital visit, ship launching or Mahiki sighting (let’s talk about irrelevance, shall we?), but they get the red carpet and people’s ears when they travel abroad, and Britain benefits from it.
By Dan on February 6th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I have to agree with Dan on this one. PA may be a Prince but he should be entitled to express and opinion. I for one saw it as constructive and from a voice of experience in war. Sadly the same cannot be said for our current President who’s own father expressed reservations on his sons actions on Iraq.
By Trudie on February 6th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Charles and Prince Andrew are, unfortunately, very like the offspring of all powerful parents, in that they speak when they should be silent, pontificate when they should listen and learn, and preen in the spotlight of their parents’ glory, where they have no earned place. Charles was received at the White House because he is the heir of Queen Elizabeth II and for no other reason. Charles and Andrew remind me of the words of the wife of Stanley Baldwin, just prior to the Abdication Crisis in England, who said, sympathetically, to Queen Mary, “One’s children are like a lot of time bombs. One never knows when they will go off, or in what direction.”
By Gigi on February 6th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
“…preen in the spotlight of their parents’ glory, where they have no earned place.” Yep, that’s monarchy for you.
Of course, you earn your place in it by being the children of those Royal parents. So Charles and Andrew have earned their place by birth, and should be congratulated for seeking to make their place relevant. You seem to despise monarchy and romanticize it all at once. Now put those blinders aside and use your monarchy for what it’s worth. Charles was (and will continue to be) received in the US not merely because of who his mother is, but because of who he will become. Diminish your monarchy to irrelevance, make yourself just another squabbling European republic, and Britain will become the Belgium of the 21st century. Welcome to Wallonia, ye merry English!
Queen Mary is dead. Long live the Queen.
By Dan on February 6th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Respect is earned by one’s own actions, Dan, not by who one’s parents are. Speaking out of turn on matters of foreign policy will not earn Prince Andrew respect. Foreign policy matters are the pervue of the Prime Minister. The Queen does not speak on these matters and neither should her son. As for Charles, no one living knows when, if ever, he will become King. I for one shall wait and see what transpires. Further, I shall continue to hope that Queen Elizabeth II reigns for many, many more years.
By Gigi on February 6th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
This was commentary, not a foreign policy pronouncement. It’s more appropriate coming from a member of the royal family than the PM. Andrew is expressing a knowledge of institutional memory that is lacking from all contemporary governments.
By ClassyCanuck on February 6th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I, too, am in the “Dan camp.” I wish someone here would express such an articulate, and well thought out opinion. I understand that the royal family is to stay out of politics, but I think that the Prince is entitled to his opinion. To the extent he ruffled some feathers here I say good for him. With all due respect to Gigi who has an admirable amount of knowledge of and a deep affection for the royal family I say please celebrate the fact that today we’ve got more than Kate Middleton’s facial expression, William’s thinning hair and Fergie burning her house down.
By Mary on February 6th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Thank you for your kind words, Mary. There does seem to be a disconnent here, however. I do not have a problem with Prince Andrew expressing his opinion, but he does not have expertise in the military data that lead to the decisions made by the high command in America. Further, his opinion on military matters in America should not have been made publically just prior to travelling to America as a trade ambassador for Britain. That is like insulting a hostess just prior to sitting down to her table for dinner. Such behavior is sure to chill the atmosphere and the soup! As for the qualities for which the Royal Family isbest known, I doubt that among those are whether or not Prince William has thinning hair. To my knowledge, Sarah, Duchess of York, did not burn her house down but did have a fire in a bathroom. Part of what has discredited the news media in my lifetime is their trumpeting and making far too much of superficial matters–like physical characteristics, for example. I would hope that what is on the inside is more important than what is on the outside. As for Prince Andrew’s comments on America’s military decisions, I still say “those who speak do not know, and those who know do not speak.” He devalues his reputation when he uses his position as his mother’s son, parlays it into a bully pulpit and speaks publically on matters about which he has no expertise. We have people here in America who do that, also–Hollywood people who have made some movies and suddenly see themselves as experts on politics, the military and every hot topic of the day. It is absolutely inappropriate behavior in anyone, but especially in a Prince.
By Gigi on February 6th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
You say that respect is earned by one’s own actions, and in the same breath you say that Charles and Andrew should take none. What a waste of potential!
While I don’t believe they should dive into the pit of politics (nor do I believe they have done) I do believe they can be strong voices on matters of principle. Must they be known solely for their lavish lifestyle and failed marriages, and not for making positive contributions? I believe Charles has done himself and Britain proud for his stance on urban blight, sustainable agriculture, and climate change, all of which have been adopted (finally!) as matters of global urgency. Why would anyone prefer that he had simply sat down and shut up?
Reread Andrew’s comments, and you’ll find that they hardly represent divisive policy positions. He’s simply saying that there is much to learn from history, specifically British history on this subject, and people who make important decisions should take heed. To me, that’s a simple honest truth, one you might hear in any history course at university.
Perhaps that’s one difference between Americans and Britons. We don’t believe there’s such a thing as “speaking out of turn”. Who decides whose turn it is? Who decides whose turn it is not? Should Martin Luther have minded his place and kept silent? What about Martin Luther King? Simply being Royal ought not to shackle anyone to a life of mute indifference or silly irrelevance. You can disagree with them , but you have no right to silence them. What kind of republican virtue is that?
In the words of Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
Elizabeth, Charles, Diana, Anne, Andrew, and the rest have had, and may yet have, roles to play in the pursuit of positive change in a world that desperately needs it. They also have a leg up on the rest of us, because they already command the world’s attention. How many people stood against the stigma of AIDS or the tragedy of landmines before Diana stood there first, to the petty derision of those who felt she should simply keep quiet, stay pretty and mind her place?
Perhaps I’m in the minority, but I say, better the Royals serve with distinction than as a mere Succession of hairstyles, fashion faux pas, and tabloid fodder that our “celebrity” culture already provides in sordid abundance. I hope Britain’s Royal Family continues to craft a place for itself at the table of world leaders addressing the world’s most dire problems. Indeed, I believe it is the only way it CAN continue.
By Dan on February 6th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I have to say I’m in the “Dan Camp” as well. I don’t view PA’s comments as critical at all, but in fact, when I hear criticism coming from other world leaders and figures, I too often have to agree! I’m not talking about crackpots like Iran’s idiot leader, or even Chavez of Venezuela, but sometimes even they might score a point or two.
Sometimes we just need to hear it from others! Bush and his cronies have shut too many people out and only hear what they want to hear! Augh! Cannot wait until until they’re out!
By On the Outside on February 6th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
I also agree with Dan. The Royal Family can contribute much to the world and the world’s needs through their stature and earned respect by using it to guide us clear. Whether their respect is earned through history or through their own deeds, it is still respect.
What I find most interesting is the focus of discussion on Andrew’s decision to step out of the safe zone instead of on the content of what he actually said or attempted to communicate. I’m of the opinion American industry is more concerned about their ability to use the world market for financial profit than Andrew’s concern about our political decisions. I live in Atlanta and have to concede the South is on the conservative side but Andrew’s comments don’t threaten American industry so they are likely to be of little consequence.
Whether we agree with the Iraq invasion or not, Andrew’s comments are on the mark. I can’t remember a time in recent history (even not recent) when we have taken hard earned advice from our seasoned allies who have lived through much and learned hard lessons. Andrew’s comment was made yesterday, so it applies to Bush, but not listening to our allies’ wishes/experiences is nonpartisan. Some could call it misguided American enthusiasm and confidence (of which I have to admit I am one). I’ve yet to understand why we so easily go to war when we can’t win one. The last war won was WWII and the American’s didn’t win that war. The ALLIES won that war. Britain was holding on with sheer will. Why shouldn’t we learn lessons from a country such as that?
Royalty can only grow through evolution and redesigning it’s role in a changing world. Andrew’s comments don’t declare a national policy for Britain; they are only ideas for thought.
By lionhound on February 7th, 2008 at 1:27 am
John any cocktails left over from the Move? LOL. I hope you are all settled in your office with a view.
By Trudie on February 7th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Oh dear. I hadn’t thought. John, are our comments driving you to drink?
By lionhound on February 7th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Is Prince Andrew entitled to his opinion? Absolutely. Was it prudent for him to express it publicly? In my opinion, no. I say that for two reasons. 1) While there may be American businessmen who agree with him, there will undoubtedly be others who don’t. Andrew is something of a goodwill trade ambassador and as such, should maintain, well, goodwill. 2) IF it is true that there are those in the U.S. and throughout the world who are befuddled enough about politics and government to believe that British Royals are “leaders,” as has been maintained, it is a slippery slope for any of the Royals to publicly espouse their political views when they may be in conflict with the prevailing diplomatic ideology of those who are actually governing the country. When the Royals diverge publicly in their political viewpoints from those of the PM and his administration, it would appear that Britain is a country divided. The longstanding protocol against Royals being involved in political dialogue is thus validated. We have to consider the purpose behind that protocol when we invite the RF to be more “relevant” by dispensing their political opinions. If you consider one sector of public sentiment towards the RF, many would find them more relevant in their current roles if, for instance, Prince Andrew would fly business class instead of chartering a private jet while touring the U.S. Those who resent the current state of the monarchy are unlikely to find the Royals more credible just because one or more Royals speak candidly of their foreign policy opinions while the inner workings of the monarchy remain the same.
President Bush is the president whether anyone agrees with him or not. As such, he has set American policy. Criticism of that policy is inevitable and does not offend me. Without criticism, our leaders would have carte blanche to run amok. However, as an American, I do consider the source of the criticism. In this case, I scoff. It does offend me. And you would be surprised to know that I disagree with a great deal of Bush’s foreign policy, so my taking offense has nothing to do with my own personal ideology. (Please do not imply from my comments that I agree with PA, either.)
By Melissa on February 7th, 2008 at 2:21 am
I found Prince Andrew’s comments patronizing, “We with our history and experience know better than you Yanks. You should have come to us for advice.” That may be, but the fact remains that we Yanks have saved Europe from itself twice and protected the free world for a number of years so we can probably figure this out.
By Cindy on February 7th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Well, that’s as broad a spectrum of opinion on the issue as anyone could wish for. And conducted with such good grace and without rancour.
Now for my two cents.
Dan says a lot that’s true, but his insistence that Royalty should be real players in the world of politics is unrealistic. Modern Monarchy represents the unifying tendency in society. The whole nation (left, right, conservative, liberal) can unite behind the Queen at critical times in our nation, because there’s no overt party politics involved. American discourse is based around politics. The Head of State is a political figure. You accept that. But we in Britain have a different tradition.
In WW2, Churchill ran the war effort and was a great hero. But it was King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (the late QM) whom they rallied around when they remained in London despite the blitz and the bombing of Buckingham Palace.
As for Andrew’s views, they are fairly conventional over here in the UK. They were presented more articulately by the British Professor of history Nial Ferguson, who has been teaching in universities around New York.
What Nial said, though, was that America could learn a lot from British imperial history in its current world role (see his book, The American Empire).
What Andrew was saying was that the White House should have listened to British Government advice. What advice was that? The advice of Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell, authors of the Dodgy Dossier, and spin meisters supreme. Neither has any knowledge of the military or of British history. The Minister of Defence was Geoff Hoon, a lawyer known as Blair’s poodle and sidelined during the runup to the Iraq war.
Andrew missed the mark. Had he adopted Nial Ferguson’s point of view, he would have been spot on. He was still wrong though, in my opinion, to bring up this subject just prior to his visit. Royalty needs discipline and tact as well personality and exposure.
By John on February 7th, 2008 at 10:53 am
On Dan’s points about Prince Charles — I’ve been saying much the same things about him here in the face of great hostility from our American contributors, who see him as the Wicked Witch to Diana’s Snow White.
Charles did pioneer many of the 21st century’s concerns back in the 1970s when they were profoundly unpopular. He persevered despite the cost to his personal reputation. He is by far a more respected figure in the green movement around the world than Al Gore, who might be said to be playing a political card here.
Whatever is said about his marriage (and he has remained faithful to the love of his life), his position in history will be assured for his defence of universal values on the built environment, education, the state of the natural world and others. He learned many of these topics from his father, Prince Philip, who pioneered the World Wildlife Trust with Peter Scott back in the 1950s.
So Royalty can make a difference on the longer waves of history, compared to short wave political concerns. That’s how I see the Monarchy’s role in the world. I think Dan does too. But we shouldn’t confuse the spectacularly-impressive world of democracy, currently playing out in America’s primaries and caucuses, with the more settled value-based practices of Royalty.
By John on February 7th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Trudie, we’re settling in to the new offices at last, but we’ve still a lot of unpacking to do. We don’t have a view of the Quay and river from here, but this gives you some idea of the environment :
Pity about the yellow van.
By John on February 7th, 2008 at 11:23 am
ClassyCanuck, good point. A “knowledge of institutional history” is often missing from contemporary politics, but it has to be expressed with care, and not on the eve of a sensitive trade mission which has to appeal to all sides of the argument.
In general terms though, yes, I agree.
By John on February 7th, 2008 at 11:31 am
John, with all due respect, I think you’ve (again) unfairly lumped anyone who would justly find fault with certain aspects of Charles’ conduct in one pile as ‘Dianistas,’ to use a term that you’ve utilized before. While for many reasons I err on the side of Diana on the subject of Charles’ infidelity, I also can objectively applaude Charles’ contributions in many areas, including the environment as well as tolerance for and understanding of people of all faiths, etc. I also do not view Diana as a saint or “Snow White,” as you would say. It’s not all or nothing on one side or the other. They both had their frailities.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone here vehemently object to Charles’ marital conduct while praising Diana as an overall saint. But I have seen Charles defended on every count, seemingly without any objectivity whatsoever. If one wants to patronize the so-called ‘Dianistas’ and imply some measure of irrationality in those defending one aspect of her life, then it is just as irrational to defend Charles as being without any fault in every aspect of his life. There hasn’t been much objectivity of Charles at all by those who side with him, eh? I’ve stopped short of placing a patronizing label on those who defend Charles without objectivity, despite the temptation.
By Melissa on February 7th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Still looks nice!!! now what about those cocktails? this debate is starting to get hot!!!
By Trudie on February 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Melissa, I think we all recognize Charles’s faults (everyone is human), but I think he’s proved his merits in ways that few politicians do — by going right out on a limb for decades without concern for his popularity. That’s very unusual for a public figure.
By John on February 7th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Trudie, the Long Island Iced Teas went long ago, but there’s a little Californian Merlot left if you don’t mind a very small sherry glass.
By John on February 7th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Here’s a practical example of what Prince Andrew is getting at. Back in the 1960s, Britain was faced with what was called The Confrontation in Indonesia. It was an insurgency by local guerrillas againt the presence of British troops. It was very similar to America’s experience in Vietnam, and Britain’s today in Afghanistan.
Old Empire hands advised that against such an enemy you had to have a 15-1 advantage in troop numbers to defeat them. Those numbers were provided and the British prevailed.
Today, in Afghanistan British troops are probably outnumbered 15-1 (or more) by the Taliban and are straining even to hold already-won positions.
So, if the British Government is not heeding its own imperial experience, why should anyone expect the Americans to do that either?
Actually, General Petraus’s Surge in Iraq is doing just that, with great success. Whether that success will prove permanent after the boys go home before November’s election is anyone’s guess.
By John on February 7th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
John, I think that Prince Andrew’s statements have been pushed right off the front page by none other than the Archbishop of Canterbury! Rowan Williams appears to be an unconvential prelate who seems to enjoy making controversial statements. He may have bitten off a bit more than he can chew this time, as I cannot imagine the British standing still for anything or anyone challenging the supremacy of British Law in Great Britain. I have a feeling that it will be a lively Lent, during which the Archbishop may well be forced to relent!
By Gigi on February 7th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
GRRR! I meant to type “unconventional” of course. Typos!! :*(
By Gigi on February 7th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Ah, the point was missed.
If “we” all recognize Charles’ flaws, there are those whose comments never reflect a recognition of such. A person can’t fault people for defending Diana while being intractable about Charles’ mistakes. THAT’S my point. Perhaps the “Americans” wouldn’t be so “hostile” when the subject of Charles’ infidelity comes up if endless excuses were not made on his behalf and if some concessions were made that the buck could have just as easily stopped with him. Instead, we hear a lot of “she should have known” and “she should have understood his needs” and “she made it so difficult for poor Charles,” etc. To admit that he was, excuse me for saying, a schmuck in his marriage doesn’t take away from his humanitarian and environmental accomplishments. In many ways, I think Charles is a man a lot like myself in his interests and pursuits but I can’t excuse him from his responsibility in his personal affairs (no pun intended). Diana in many ways was frivolous in her pursuits and I don’t really relate to that but I also see that she had an enormous heart and that she tried to go out on a limb and make a difference in causes that were unpopular. I respect her for that. What I also know is the heart of a 19-year-old girl and the hearts of many women of that age. It’s not hard for most women to put themselves in those shoes. I don’t want to be audacious enough to speak for anyone else, but I think that may be the reason so many women speak up for Diana. And now that I’ve worn my heart on my sleeve a bit, I will shut up. Forgive me if you’ve felt attacked when I’ve spoken up for Diana with respect to her marriage.
It seems inevitable that British troops would be having trouble holding the line in Afghanistan given that Tony Blair began pulling troops out before he left office. Neither the Americans nor the British can claim success in either of their strategies at this point. Only time will tell if the American troop surge in Iraq will make a long-term difference. It is ultimately up to the Iraqis and thus far they seem reluctant to step up to the plate in a meaningful way.
Trudie, I don’t drink but if you could whip me up a nice cup of cocoa? I’ll bring the whipped cream (or marshmallows) and chocolate sprinkles to top it off.
By Melissa on February 7th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Sounds good Melissa.
By Trudie on February 8th, 2008 at 1:42 am
I thought I was rather explicit in my opinion that the Royal Family has no place in politics. As we see on a daily basis, nobody that we know shines for long in that arena. My hope for the Royal Family is that they find a place — as I feel Charles has — in matters of principle about which most of the world is already in agreement, but in which the world is seeking leadership the world will listen to.
John, that is their “unifying” role, as you call it. And it is hardly a controversial role. As Diana, Mother Theresa, Aung San Suu Kyi and countless others have demonstrated, human rights are right. Would that Aung San Suu Kyi had the ready-made bully pulpit that Elizabeth, Charles, Anne, or Andrew has! Instead, it seems we would prefer the Royal Family stick to jewelry, blue suits, garden parties, and annoying children. (Haven’t the Grimaldis in Monaco fulfilled that role well enough?)
The world has had enough of petty politics. The world needs leaders on the issues that really matter. If we look closely and encourage thoughtfully, we’ll discover that we already have some, waiting in the wings, if only we’ll listen to them, and not berate them for “speaking out of turn”.
By Dan on February 8th, 2008 at 3:46 am
Gigi, Rowan Williams is an old hair-shirt Leftie intellectual who somehow got to be Archbishop of Canterbury (Tony Blair advised the Queen to appoint him, wouldn’t you know!). He once camped out with the mob at Greenham Common demanding Americans leave their bases in England.
Now he wants Sharia law in Britain. So far, he’s not got a single supporter and the politicians are aghast. This Archbishop is not long for the pulpit of Canterbury.
By John on February 8th, 2008 at 9:39 am
From the news reports and readers’ comments I have read today, Rowan Williams certainly has put the cat among the pidgeons! I can’t imagine how he thinks his proposal could be achieved. This is yet another headache for the government to sort out and I imagine Queen Elizabeth II is shaking her head and perhaps spinning her ring yet again. Rowan Williams forgot what our grandfathers taught us: “He who would live in peace and ease should not speak all he knows nor judge all he sees.”
By the way, how does one remove a seated Archbishop of Canterbury? Must the Queen do this, or can lower prelates of the church force his resignation?
By Gigi on February 8th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Well the Queen appoints him, on Prime Ministerial advice (why???), so I presume she could dispose of him in exceptional circumstances. That’s very unlikely though, even after the old codger’s dopey musings. However, a vote of no confidence in the Synod of the Church or among his top Bishops would certainly shame him into resignation. He’s not a bad man just totally delusional.
By John on February 8th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Will Prince Andrew publicly criticize the Archbishop of Canterbury’s controversial position regarding a two-tier legal system in Great Britain: British law for British citizens and Sharia law for Muslims? I doubt it!
By Arthur on February 9th, 2008 at 12:41 am
He’s still good looking.
By Positive on February 9th, 2008 at 2:08 am
If he has any sense, Arthur, he’ll steer well clear of it. The Archbishop chairs the General Synod of the Church on Monday so it will be interesting to see what sort of support he gets. Most members are quietly furious.
By John on February 9th, 2008 at 9:13 am