Talk:Cherie Blair/Archive 1

Royal Wedding Snub
Is there any truth in the rumour that she had already purchased the leopard print 3/4 length jacket and matching pillbox hat, and was upset not to be invited to the wedding of Prince William and the other commoner? Are there any anecdotes about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.103.97 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotes
something of an anecdotal grab-bag, isn't it? --Christofurio 20:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Been quite a few edits since, is much improved. -- Oscar The Cat talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px]] 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne
In 2003, after being invited to a Melbourne and told to take a few items for free A Melbourne...what? --Paul 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That typo has now been fixed, it was a Melbourne shop. -- Oscar The Cat talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px]] 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Booth or Blair?
This has probably come up before, I suspect ... :) Doesn't the lady in question go by her maiden name of Cherie Booth?  If so, why is this page titled "Cherie Blair" with her actual name being a redirect?  Shouldn't it be the other way round?

Matrix Chambers list her as Cherie Booth QC, as does this very page (which continually refers to "Booth"). Vashti 17:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't she legally "Blair", and just goes by the name "Booth" for her work. I think that this is the correct way round, as when she retires, she will still be "Blair".  I can understand the problem... Kolonuk 13:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, although the reasons are a little unclear as there are two potential reasons. As I understand it, it is particularly difficult and messy to change your name in certain qualified professions, as well as it leading to loss of name recognition, and Cherie was a barrister some years before marrying Tony. So a lot of professional women retain their maiden name because the hassle of changing it is too great. Some women insist on keeping their maiden names for feminist reasons and will do so in all circumstances. It's not clear which is the reasoning is this case, although her books all use "Cherie Booth" (but several are law related and it's not unusual to use a single name). I'm not aware of her having made any fuss about being called "Cherie Blair", which she would have if she doesn't use the name and papers like the Guardian would not have used it either. Timrollpickering 14:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a general misapprehension that women automatically change their name upon marriage. This is not the case (in England, at least). Many women may choose to change their name upon marriage, but the default is no change. i.e. if you do nothing your name does not change (legally, at least). Rachel Pearce (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There isn't actually a great deal of legal control of names in England. The law basically allows a person to use whatever name they like so long as it isn't for fraudulent purposes and one doesn't have to go through formal processes to change a surname when marrying (or for other reasons such as adding/dropping sections of double barrelled names or even just going by the shortened form of a forename or a middle name) in order to use the surname. There's also various traditions about names being automatically acquired/passed on that probably have enough legal force that a person who doesn't use a particular version would still be recognised as having the name unless they'd taken some extraordinary step to explicitly cut themselves off from them (e.g. a woman who uses her maiden name in all contexts could still claim a cheque made out to her married name or any court action initially made out in the married name probably wouldn't be invalidated on that basis alone). Timrollpickering (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Category
Cherie is included in the people of irish descent in britain category, is there any proof that she is of irish ancestry? Superdude99 14:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Her father definitely, see Anthony Booth. Arniep 12:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Is there not a more flattering picture that could be posted? The current picture is a bit of a joke (IMO, but then again I am an American).

$$ I would like to say that if you could actually see her hair it might offend you/scare small children Blonde$2max 14:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be rather hard to flatter her! Besides she is well known for her awful well publicised shots! --Camaeron 18:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you spend nearly £8,000, it should look good. Must really be scary.


 * It does get worse. There's a picture around of her opening the front door on her first day at No. 10. She had just woken up and was in her nightdress. The world's press was outside and... her face was not a pretty sight. It would be unkind to link to that image, it really is that nasty. Bremmner, the satirist, makes regular jokes about her being an ideal replacement for a post box (presumably a dig at the shape of her mouth). Poweroid 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This remind me of an episode of the Simpsons, where Lisa has to get braces. The orthodontist warns her to get braces, and to scare her, he shows her "The big book of British smiles". --Soetermans 23:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where can I find this picture? 80.47.208.148 20:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You can hardly protest about how unflattering the picture is. The woman is notorious for her unfortunate tendency to be caught with her mouth gaping wide, looking for all the world like a Royal Mail letterbox or the Crazy Frog. Her appearance is such as to seriously call into question the judgement of Tony Blair. If people had realised this earlier we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

Too many controversies
As this page stands at the moment we have approximately 350 word on Cherie's life and career and approximately 900 words on various 'Controversies' involving her. As most of these are relatively minor (wearing the wrong colour to visit the Pope anyone?) and taking into account that Cherie Blair is by no means one of the more controversial characters in British politics, I would argue that this section should be scaled back to include only the two or three more noteworthy controversies.

Wow. Maybe she is a Super King Kamehameha Biatch. Or maybe she just has a peculiar talent for pissing off the press. Edeans 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree to the logic behind cutting the controversies section. Please proceed. Lafem 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this view. It just happens that Cherie's antisocial behaviour is the main part of her life (apart from being the PM's wife) and so the controversies should be kept. 80.47.208.148 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I have to agree -- compared w/ the coverage given her life and her career, the sheer volume of text devoted to controversies — easily the largest part of the article — creates a serious problem with undue weight. –GGreeneVa 03:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The controversies section reads like a hatchet job. pov, poorly sourced etc. Secretlondon 09:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So long as the controversies are real and verifiable they must stay. If she has attracted more bad press than good, that's not undue weight, that's an accurate representation of reality. Please remove NPOV tag from section, thanks. 83.67.217.254 06:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether some of the controversies, a lot of which seem barely controversial to me could be incorporated into a section describing her life post Number 10? It does seem a little unbalanced to have Early Life and the Controversies. Shouldn't there be at least something on her current job or not only what Libby Purves said about her memoirs? Luvlymish 10:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Most Annoying People of 2006
I have removed the claim that Cheric was voted 3rd Most Annoying Person of 2006 in the BBC3 end-of-year poll as it is simply untrue. Having watched (and recorded) the programme I can report than not only was she not third (Russell Brand was, as is correctly reported on his Wikipedia page), she was not even on the list. The citation given, the BBC3 mini-site for the programme, makes no mention of Cherie Blair nor does it give the list of who came where.

Even if it were correct, it would hardly be appropriate to mention it in the opening paragraph as if it were one of the most important things about her.WarmasterKron 19:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall exactly what position she was now (thought it was third) but it's total boll**** to say she wasn't mentioned - she was in the top 10. I will ask around to find out the correct placing. Personally I think it is important - this is a BBC programme confirming her beloved place in the hearts of the British nation. MarkThomas 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

She was not in the top 10. The top 10 were as follows: 10.Lily Allen 9.Paris Hilton 8.Sophie Anderton 7.John Prescott 6.Kerry Katona 5.Tom Cruise 4.Heather Mills 3.Russell Brand 2.Nikki Grahame and 1.Pete Doherty.

Feel free to claim she was somewhere else in the list, but until you can verify it, don't put it into the article.WarmasterKron 02:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Train fare incident
I SENSE THIS ENTIRE PAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED BY SOMEONE WORKING FOR HER - WHY SHOULD THE TRUTH HURT SUCH A DEVOUT CATHOLIC?? (edit: someone here obviously reads the Daily Mail)

I sense that many negative comments have been deleted from this article discussion to an irregular extent based on my experience of wikipedia editing. I added a whole section "shallow insectile woman" outlining her raw abuses of power her self serving autobiography etc. Where did that go. Since then i hear she's betrayed the confidences of the queen in her autobiograpy. I also added a mention of the family of David Kelly criticizing the use of his name in her autobiography. If *this* paragraph now disappears the writer may consider registering with wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.56.241 (talk) 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted an anon a few days ago. The IP had added details of an incident in 2000 where Cherie Blair, apparently in a hurry to get to Luton, boarded a train without a ticket as she didn't have the right change and the machine did not take credit card. On her arrival, she went straight to the ticket collector, said she didn't have a ticket, and paid the £9.70 return ticket plus the £10 fine by credit card. Although it did happen, and is reported in reliable news sources, it is a very minor incident in Mrs Blair's life, and does not belong in an enyclopaedia article about her. Additionally, the IP used language like "She claimed to have tried a ticket machine", which is contrary both to our neutral point of view policy and to our biography of living persons policy. The anon came to my talk page to complain, and referred me here, where I see no evidence that this is being discussed or that the anon has been taking part in any discussion about this article. (He/she posted on my talk page on two separate days from the same IP, so presumably it's a static one.) ElinorD (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied on your talk page, and refer you to the non-neutral point of view that you have with this article.82.14.89.118 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of a neutral point of view?

It WAS Controversial at the time and does therefore deserve to be included under the heading of controversies. Your relation of the incident is somewhat at variance with the contemporary sources. She was reported in the Evening Standard not as having paid straightaway but of having asked the poor ticket collector if he "realised who she was?" What is YOUR source for the dismissive way in which you treat the incident? Cherie, herself?Jatrius 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Did she climb over the ticket machines like michael jackson? Her face certainly suits that scenario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.56.241 (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just now see this very old discussion, and that the information is still in the article. I think it should be removed as irrelevant and unimportant.  I just read the BBC report on it, and I think it's trivial.  Since it has been in the article for a very long time, I'm not going to remove it straightaway, but rather request we have a new discussion about it here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good grief, yes. We're not talking about a case where she tried to avoid paying for the fare - but was instead incapable of doing so (no cash, and automate didn't take cash), and when arriving she immediately went to pay for the fare (+fine). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is not noteworthy, I don't think there will be any support to keep it in. I did replace it in Feb in the middle of a content dispute but has no value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed as per this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

June 26, 2007
I have removed the Trivia section of the article - please see WP:BLP. --Ozgod 13:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You ought not to have done. Useful content has been lost. It could have been incorporated elsewhere. 195.217.52.130 12:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cherie's mother
This article says Tony Booth married Gale Smith in early 1954. I'm an amateur genealogist and have located this marriage in the General Register Office Index, however strangely the bride's name isn't Gale. It reads "Anthony G. Booth" to "Joyce Smith", London district of Marylebone, page 756. Joyce has no initials afterwards which could indicate Gale as being a middle name. So what gives? Have the Guardian messed up and Cherie's parents actually married earlier, or is Gale just not her mum's real name? Analog Kid 12:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong infobox?
Is the "politician" infobox really appropriate for this article? Cherie Blair isn't notable as a politician, and she has never held any office of state. She wasn't "in office" as the prime minister's wife, because there is no such office! 217.155.20.163 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
The criticism section recieves far too much undue weight for a biography of a living person. It needs to be trimmed back substantially. The wife of a prime minister is going to be in the news quite a bit, not every little negative thing that's ever been said about her should be in her biography.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Autobiography
There should be mention of her autobiography; the controversy concerning it's timing (brought forward to maximise damage to Brown) and it's reference to the scientist David Kelly.

From the press:

Cherie Blair has been accused by the family of British government scientist David Kelly of deliberately misrepresenting his suicide to downplay her husband's role in it.

Derek Vawdrey, the brother of Dr Kelly's widow, Janice, said the former prime minister's wife "should be ashamed of herself" for the misleading way she presents the suicide in her memoirs which are due to be released today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.178.41 (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Former nude model
I heard her on the radio reading her autobiography and saying that while a young barrister she repeatedly modelled nude for an artist for "18 months" although the painting was unfinished, and that everyone at her chambers knew all about it, including her boss Baron Irvine who had introduced her to the artist. And she had three boyfriends including TB at once, with some implication that she was having **x with all three of them. Women, eh? Hello Tony. Edit: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-421698/Revealed-Cheries-nude-portrait-Tony-tried-ban.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/system/topicRoot/Cherie_Blair/ What I find truly astonishing is that the so-called artist took TWO YEARS to do something that I could have genuinely done in ten minutes. Artist=self-important-layabout (or "layabout with a diploma") in my dictionary. 80.0.110.30 (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced
The "Controversies" section leaves this article quite unbalanced. I do not think we need a WP:COATRACK in articles about living people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wholly agree. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, it's strung together without rhyme nor reason. Some things are in there that aren't even controversies. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've cut this back considerably for those reasons. More than half was crap and certainly not controversies.  The Foster issue was editorialised rather than sticking to the ref'd source; I've fixed that as well.  Now it should not be WP:UNDUE. --Faith (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Active politician?
She is not "running" for office, in office or active as a politician. Her political career was, as the article notes, brief and unsuccessful. Just because she is married to someone who was in office does not make her an active politician. Why does this talk page have the "Active politician" box at the top? Rachel Pearce (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Having had no response to this I am going to remove the box. Rachel Pearce (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Added section on publication of her memoirs
I added a short new section on the publication of her memoirs, in late May 2008, which promise to be highly interesting. Perhaps this section could be expanded as needed.

Frank Eldon Dixon, 14:07, 3 June 2008 FrankEldonDixon (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Their four children
Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony and Cherie Blair have four children: Euan (b. 1984), Nicky (b. 1986), Kathryn (b. 1988) and Leo (b. 2000). According to Blair's official biography, Leo "was the first child born to a serving Prime Minister in over 150 years".

She shouldn't have apologized for such acts though. The people that blew themselves up were terrorists; Islamic murderers. It was a shame that she apologized for those enemies of the West.
I see the Daily Mail readers have been busy...

Arms did she break them ?
She was considering standing in 1987, but a cycling accident in which she broke both her arms ended her chances.

I can't find this anywhere apart from mirror sites so I will remove it feel free to cite it and replace it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious sentencing
"I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person..." Notable for breach of secular ethics and religious freedom.--Anthonzi (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I am an independent, if your talking to me? Off2riorob (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

this is what you added....

A case was heard at Inner London Crown Court on January 23rd 2010, where a man, 25, was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (he broke a persons jaw in a bank), however Blair gave the man a suspended sentence stating "I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”

The inclusion of "being religious" as a reason to give the man a suspended sentence has been deemed rather controversial. Complaints have been made about this conduct to the Office for Judicial Complaints. Their report on the matter has yet to be published. 

....In the cite it says this...but said she would suspend his prison sentence because he was a religious person and had not been in trouble before... In a british court not having a previous conviction carries a lot of weight. IMO this is being portrayed poorly from a position that they want it to have been a secular decision, which it clearly was not, judges are allowed to take facets of peoples lives into consideration, I think we should report this if the report comes to anything but for now it is a non event. Off2riorob (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is hardly a "non event". Evidence of the controversy it is creating can be found here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5070 --Anthonzi (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats not a controversy, that is his thing, I suggest you wait to see if anything actually happens, a claim of a report has been made if anything comes of it we can add it, until then it is momentary hype.Think about it like this, if the report is rejected as rubbish and worthless will anyone remember this in ten years, no.. if the report is actioned and she is punished for this issue then it will be a notable issue in her life, an encyclopedia is for the long term notable issues. Off2riorob (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Long-term notable issues like a ten pound train ticket fine? Sources ranging from the BBC through to the Evening Standard have covered this story, and it has been the subject of both for and against op-eds in several British dailies. Not only does this cross the notability guideline but it does so with a tickertape parade. I will be re-adding this section complete with citations, and I advise you to think very carefully before carrying out more censorship. Nach0king (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen this incident reported in a number of places, including a recent Pharyngula post (URL:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/you_are_a_religious_man_and_yo.php posted 11 Feb) and on the BBC News site: (URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8497365.stm posted 4 Feb), in my opinion this is certainly important enough for inclusion as religion should play no part in the justice system, we've been down that road before. Hideki (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't do that, it is not notable unless more occurs. Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is the religious sentencing part of the article notable and appropriate?
One editor argues that it is not, and has signalled on my talk page his intention to remove my edits. Myself and others (see above) argue that it is both notable and appropriate, and does not give undue weight to recent events. I would really appreciate more viewpoints on this issue. Nach0king (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be included, I think at the moment thou it has a undue weight in the article - I think ultimately it's importance will be defined by what happens in the future - if CB is reprimanded for the comment then it will obviously be a bigger issue. If on the other hand no action is taken against her for it, I think the claim of it being a "Controversy" is a bit strong and one of the presses making. For the time being I think something along the lines of :
 * In January 2010 Blair was alleged to have taken a man's religiosity into account when sparing him a custodial sentence for assault. The National Secular Society submitted an objection to the Office for Judicial Complaints, who then released a statement indicating that several other complaints had been received about the alleged comments, and that the matter was under investigation.
 * would be appropriate (with out it's own section heading). Codf1977 (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your sober feedback. I must disclose that I am a member - albeit a passive one (card-carrying and little else) of the NSS - so perhaps it would be inappropriate of me to edit further. I invite you to submit that edit, but I would add one thing: the Office for Judicial Complaints mentioned several complaints, not just one (in fact they didn't cite the NSS by name), so we need to say there was more than one complaint. Nach0king (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How about :
 * In January 2010 Blair was alleged to have taken a man's religiosity into account when sparing him a custodial sentence for assault. The Office for Judicial Complaints, released a statement saying they had "received a number of complaints in relation to the comments" and that the matter was under investigation.
 * ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

✅

Continued
There have been other edits made to this section since, and they did not offer either a neutral view of the event nor even a neutral reading of the sources given! I have added a small sentence in an attempt to provide balance. Again I welcome all comments. Nach0king (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am reverting back to the above, as I now think the parah over plays this until such time as the Office for Judicial Complaints makes a ruling. Codf1977 (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair decision. Thanks! Nach0king (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

CIA
She was CIA? The Robert Harris book and Polanski Film is not phantasy? After all, she was
 * Governor of the London School of Economics (neoliberal doctrinal institution)
 * She belongs to the MATRIX
 * The New York Observer wrote that her being an agent for the CIA "would certainly explain pretty much everything about the recent history of Great Britain."

uncanny!! 203.184.41.52 (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
In the infobox it says her birth name is "Cherie Booth", yet the main article says she was christened Theresa Cara Booth. It can't be both... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.152.3.106 (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)