High Court blocks bid to prosecute Blair over Iraq War

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

The Royal Family are bound by strict rules on voicing opinions and interfering in political life; they are expected to remain neutral and represent an unbiased outlook on national matters. The ever-dutiful Queen Elizabeth II stuck to these largely unspoken rules for the better part of her life and reign. Other royals have bent them in ways that might suggest they no longer function: King Charles III, for example, has regularly opined on a whole range of topics, with reports this year suggesting he privately made clear he is “more than disappointed” with the Government’s plans to send migrants to Rwanda.

Yet, the Royal Family are ultimately human, and so even the late Queen at times let an opinion slip.

None was this perhaps more obvious than in 2005, an episode reported by the Daily Express with the headline, ‘Queen’s Fury at snub to war heroes’.

The Iraq war had been raging for two years by then, and Prime Minister Tony Blair had committed the UK and its troops to the conflict.

Many had returned from the Middle East injured, spending their days recovering in hospitals around the country.

Yet, as far as the Queen was concerned, these injured servicemen were going ignored by the Government.

Richard Palmer, the Daily Express’ royal editor, reported the story, along with Mark Reynolds, a journalist for the paper.

They wrote of how the Queen had launched a “scathing” attack on Mr Blair and his Cabinet for “failing to visit heroes flown home after sustaining injuries in the war and its bloody 20-month aftermath”.

The late Queen is said to have “vented her anger” after Princess Anne, her daughter, told her that most of the injured military personnel had been “abandoned” by the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues.

The former monarch told one source who contacted the Daily Express: “Do you know, they’ve had no minister visit them at all since they fought in Iraq.”

JUST IN: More pensioners living alone than ever in the UK

She added: “It’s a pity the press don’t write about it rather than some of the other things that go into the newspapers.”

At the time, around 790 British troops had been evacuated back to hospitals in Britain with serious injuries since the conflict began on March 20, 2003.

When Anne was asked to go and visit the wounded soldiers, some of whom were amputees, she found out that none had been visited by a Government minister since 2003.

A source said: “It was obvious that the Queen was angry about it by the tone of her voice and the set of her jaw.”

DON’T MISS

Queen Elizabeth II memorial vandalised in ‘abhorrent’ rampage [REPORT] 
Pensioner who can’t get a dentist appointment has pulled out 11 teeth [INSIGHT] 
Putin accused of being a paedophile by Litvinenko in unearthed reports [ANALYSIS] 

She added: “It’s a pity the press don’t write about it rather than some of the other things that go into the newspapers.”

At the time, around 790 British troops had been evacuated back to hospitals in Britain with serious injuries since the conflict began on March 20, 2003.

When Anne was asked to go and visit the wounded soldiers, some of whom were amputees, she found out that none had been visited by a Government minister since 2003.

A source said: “It was obvious that the Queen was angry about it by the tone of her voice and the set of her jaw.”

Prince Edward had been to visit wounded soldiers, and the then-Prince Charles went the week after the news of the Queen’s anger broke, a visit that had already been arranged for a month.

Mr Blair had made previous visits to Iraq to meet with soldiers, and went on to make several more visits in the following years.

While the wounded soldiers incident was perhaps the most obvious example of the Queen dropping her impartiality, it wasn’t an isolated episode.

There have been other times when the veil appeared to drop and the monarch’s true feelings came to light.

One came during the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, when, speaking from her Balmoral estate in the country, said: “Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future.”

Her opinion was further gleaned when former Prime Minister David Cameron was famously caught on camera saying she had “purred down the line” after he informed her of the result.

On a separate occasion, according to Frank Gardner, the BBC’s Special Correspondent, the Queen was less than happy about the time it took police to arrest the Islamic fundamentalist preacher Abu Hamza.

He previously told the Radio 4’s Today Programme that in a conversation he had had with her, she said she was upset there had been no way to arrest Hamza and had spoken to the Home Secretary about the issue.

Wind back the clock to July 1976 during a visit to the US, and the Queen opined on why she believed Britain lost its US colony: “We lost the American colonies because we lacked the statesmanship to know the right time and the manner of yielding what is impossible to keep.”

The late monarch was also said not to have been overly keen on the idea of Turkey joining the EU. According to broadcaster Joan Smith: “I was present when the Queen made a comment that was both reactionary and unconstitutional,” claiming that she heard the comments at a Christmas party at Downing Street.

She said: “The Queen turned to another person in the group and said: ‘The EU is getting awfully big with 28 countries.’ They said that, actually, it was 27, ‘but we are hoping Turkey will come in soon’, to which the Queen said, ‘Oh, we don’t want Turkey to come in for a long time.’”

Source: Read Full Article