Talk:Cherie Blair

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] 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. --OscarTheCat^talk 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --OscarTheCat^talk 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

  It would be hard to find a flattering current picture of such a bag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.188.246 (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC) 

Iwouldliketosaythatifyoucouldactuallyseeherhairitmightoffendyou / scaresmallchildren[[User:Blonde2max | Blonde2max]] 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)

She is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.87.61 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Cherie's mother

This article [1] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)