Image 01 Image 03

Did Margaret Thatcher “refuse” to attend Reagan statue dedication?

Did Margaret Thatcher “refuse” to attend Reagan statue dedication?

No of course not.   Margaret Thatcher is not in good health, rarely goes out or receives visitors, and therefore had to miss the dedication of a statue of Ronald Reagan in London:

It was a fitting occasion for the 4th of July. A statue of Ronald Reagan was unveiled at the American Embassy in London yesterday to mark the centenary of the former U.S. president’s birth.

Foreign Secretary William Hague and former U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice watched as the 10ft bronze figure was revealed in Grosvenor Square.

Sadly Mr Reagan’s great political ally and friend, former prime minister Baroness Thatcher, was unable to attend due to her frailty.

The reasonableness of the reaction to Thatcher’s non-appearance contrasts with the hyperventilation (and not just by the left) in early June when some anonymous “ally” of Thatcher supposedly (and falsely) told The Guardian that Thatcher refused to meet Sarah Palin. 

In fact, The Guardian went so far at to state that Thatcher, by contrast to her rebuff of Palin, would be attenting the Reagan statute dedication:

It would appear that the reasons go deeper than Thatcher’s frail health. Her allies believe that Palin is a frivolous figure who is unworthy of an audience with the Iron Lady. This is what one ally tells me:

“Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts.”

Thatcher will show the level she punches at when she attends the unveiling of a statue of Ronald Reagan outside the US embassy in Grosvenor Square on Independence day on 4 July. This is what her ally told me:

“Margaret is focusing on Ronald Reagan and will attend the unveiling of the statue. That is her level.”

No doubt a rebuff from Thatcher will delight Andrew Sullivan, the creator of The Dish blog, who regards Palin as a dangerous lightweight.

Now that The Guardian story, down to the detail of Thatcher attending the Reagan dedication to prove “her level,” has been revealed to be phony, will The Guardian and those who used  The Guardian story to bash Palin admit that they were wrong?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


…will The Guardian and those who used The Guardian story to bash Palin admit that they were wrong?

That _must_be_ rhetorical.

Imagine that. The left making up a lie.

Carol Herman | July 4, 2011 at 9:26 pm

Poor Margaret Thatcher suffers from dementia.

True. The Queen does not!

At least Margaret Thatcher no longer remembers the Queen’s distaste for her. And, neither does Princess Diana.

Does time erase all slights?

BannedbytheGuardian | July 4, 2011 at 11:07 pm

Carol – I have some British knowledge but have no recollection of Queen Elizabeth ever declaring or demonstrating distate for MT.

I had been a Guardian reader for decades way back whemMT redesigned the north.

In fact many of MT’s ministers were titled honorees eg Willie Whitelaw.

Furthermore QE is an adept politician herself not a martyr.

BannedbytheGuardian | July 4, 2011 at 11:23 pm

However it is an achievement of Dame proportions for SP to be hated by the Guardian more than their abysmal iew of MT.

BYW the Guardian lost $31million last year & are pinning their hopes of a branch in NY. Their former revenue gold pot was UK Govt employment adverts.

They have realised their only selling point is Palin Hatred.

The Guardian admit it’s wrong wrong? Let’s not talk crazy.

A Guardianista would paraphrase Jill Abramson’s, “In my house growing up, The [Guardian] substituted for religion. If The [Guardian]said it, it was the absolute truth” an feel no shame.

[…] That is, she snubbed President Reagan! Why would she do a thing like that? […]

Being a liberal means never having to say you are sorry (wasn’t that a movie?).

It was widely known that HM disliked Mrs Thatcher. Like most of her class, she’s a squishy noblesse-oblige-type socialist. They’re all too conscious that their own wealth did not come from their ancestors’ honest labour, and therefore regard all wealth as equally illegitimate. They can’t face the idea that most wealth is legitimate, but only theirs isn’t.