Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Queen sends message of support to homophobic church movement

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Mihangel apYrs 6 Jul 2009, 4:33pm

    If she wrote to these FoCAs (pronounced “fuckers”) in her official capacity, she was ill-advised; if she did it personally then she’s taken sides against us. This is constitutionally dangerous

  2. Pete & Michael 6 Jul 2009, 4:42pm

    We are not surprised, as Head of the C of E, what else can you expect.

  3. Lezabella 6 Jul 2009, 4:47pm

    So the thoroughly English Queen, Elizabeth Mountbatten/Von Battenberg nee Saxe-Coburg Gotha, supports this organisation does she?

    This cabal doesn’t recognise women in the church (surprise, surprise) or homosexuality.

    Elizabeth now appears to have much in common with her German Nan, Queen Mary of Teck, who, despite being a female herself, hated the Suffragettes movement.

  4. Simon Murphy 6 Jul 2009, 4:52pm

    What else can you expect from a woman who is opposed to democracy. She is the unelected head of state. She is the head of an organisation which has been poisoned by religion

    She needs to be kicked out and Britain should get an ELECTED head of state. It can be a simple transition from monarchy to democracy. The President of Britain can be a figurehead president (thereby fulfilling the same functions as Queen Lizzie) elected every 5 years. Makes more sense than having some unelected monarch supporting bigotted groups like the FoCA’s

  5. Simon Murphy 6 Jul 2009, 5:04pm

    In the meantime Lizzie’s office can be contacted by phone (+44) (0)20 7930 4832 during office hours.

  6. “She needs to be kicked out and Britain should get an ELECTED head of state”

    Cool – we can get rid of Brown that way, too.

  7. I don’t think it is fair to draw to many conclusions from this. As the head of the church of England it is her job to communicate with all of the different parts of the church. There is as much evidence to indicate that the queen is not homophobic and she is right in her role to stay as private as possible. Leave the queen out of it, and save your criticism for the FoCA.

  8. Dear Tony, Comment No. 7: please provide your hard evidence that “the queen is not homophobic”. (You’re going to have to provide evidence much more substantial than the fact that she puts on her plastic smile and goes backstage at the ballet to shake a gloved hand with gay dancers!)

    This silly little woman, Liz Windsor, would have a fit if one of her sons or grandsons had dared to spread his wings and scream to all the world that he was gay!

    Aren’t you forgetting things? Aren’t you forgetting that Charles was seen in bed with one of his main aides, but it all got hushed up? The poor bugger could then only find himself a mumsey woman to play with – after and while he failed to have a true red-blooded relationship with Diana. And what of his brother Edward? Look at how that one was made to conform.

    Nah, that sweet little old lady, Liz Windsor, is as hard as bloody iron and totally protective of a way of life that she remembers from her girlhood back in the nineteen-miserable-forties!

  9. Its a standard response given by the Queen to ALL major functions by bishops and other large groups. She’s sent the same message to loads of groups, including those who oppose FOCA.

    “Understands” isn’t the same as “supports”

  10. Another good reason for England becoming a Republic and finally getting rid of her and her gaggle of inbred royal parasites.

  11. This is why Dis-Establishment needs to be enacted and then H.M. can, along with everyone else, criticise those who are attracted to their own sex but abide by the…whatever.

    It might come; but not yet a while.
    Maybe under King William IV; will it be IV..?
    We still have one foot in Victorian Britain yet, in spite of two world wars, while still maintaining ‘lords and ladies’- but I doubt whether the removal of said ‘lords and ladies’ will filter down to the common man, the ‘demos’ of democracy.
    What I am more annoyed about is the religious ‘lords’ the lords ‘spiritual’ and that they should be pronouncing and pontificating to me as to who I should have in my bedroom and as to what I should do at the end of my life should the pain become intolerable.
    They, all the while, doing the exact opposite of what they pontificate to me from on high.
    Queen Mary expressly asked the physician to end her husband’s (George V)suffering, with a ‘dose’.
    I believe it was done as she asked and not least so that his demise could be announced with the appropriate dignity in the early editions of the TIMES newspaper and not some afternoon rag; two birds with one stone, as it were.

    One law for them; one for everybody else, in ALL aspects.
    You’ll not change it.
    And if you try to it will only morph into summat else.
    You and me would be in nick, well banged-up for purloining a bag of satsumas.
    The governing claaaarses can have their hand in the till 24/7 and still come up smelling of roses….AND pensioned off up to the balls, for actually ckuffing the job up…!
    You try it and see where you’d get..!
    Charles isn’t the only friend that Dorothy has at the Palace; the Queen Mum loved ‘em and wasn’t it some Duke of Clarence…oh well all ashes now; who cares..?!

    Keith.
    SALFORD

    Keith.

    Keith.

  12. I think this is a really fucking inflammatory article. It is connecting the fact that the church in question is homophobic, and that the queen wrote to support them. However that does NOT viz a viz mean that the Queen is homophobic. It is well known the palace employs many gay men.

    Simon Dastardly and his Muttley sidekick, Eddy, will no doubt spout their commie leanings claiming everyone should be elected.
    Like the same democracy that got asswipe scumbags like Mandelson as a lord? Who fucking voted for that?

  13. Ooops!

    Sorry for writing my name three times three times three times.
    I have to, on occasion.
    I so easily forget who I am I am I am wowaydoos…er nowadays.
    x

  14. Perhaps as an American I do not fully understand the concept of Monarchy in England, but it seems this “Queen” that has no real constructive power costs far too much of the British people’s money for what little good it does. Not that I think she should have any power. But, perhaps if she was a volunteer instead of a drain on the public coffers she would not be so inclined to side with the past.

    Speaking as a New Englander who understands that in addition to making life better for everyone a more sensible attitude toward gay people is also very good for the economy I am always surprised when a leader supports such a backwards agenda, especially in such a bad economy.

    As someone well studied in religious history I would also consider the Episcopal church here to be far closer to the true teachings of the Nazarene than the CofE, which is more reflective of recent popular political prejudice than the teachings of Christ.

  15. Matthew: As an American, you do not understand the concept that there are other countries that actually exist outside your federal boundaries, which is why you let a brain-dead fuckwit run your country for eight years. Please keep your New England opinions to yourself while we let our Queen run Old England. She IS a volunteer, she didn’t choose to do what she does, and the overall cost of the Royal Household is considerably less than the drain on this country by blood-sucking, expense draining Ministers, not to mention the money pit known as the European Union.

  16. Simon Murphy 6 Jul 2009, 7:44pm

    RonN – No 12.

    Do you really think supporting free elections to choose the head of state of Britain is displaying ‘commie leanings’.

    If so then you have a very poor grasp of politics. Then again you are a far-right supporter so I suppose you don’t think logically.

  17. Brian Burton 6 Jul 2009, 7:56pm

    Being a staunch Monarchist, A staunch Christian and a staunch RobNist, I pass, but just for now!

  18. USA……….REPUBLIC
    GERMANY……REPUBLIC
    ITALY……..REPUBLIC
    FRANCE…….REPUBLIC
    RUSSIA…….REPUBLIC
    BRAZIL…….REPUBLIC
    ARGENTINA….REPUBLIC
    AUSTRIA……REPUBLIC
    SWITZERLAND..REPUBLIC

    VATICAN……MONARCHY
    U.K……….MONARCHY

    The head of a republic is DEMOCRATICLY ELECTED
    The head of a monarchy is a DICTATOR

    QUEEN E-II = POPESS BETTY-XVI = F.U.

  19. jonnielondon 6 Jul 2009, 8:01pm

    Matthew, a very good point about economics. RobN is actually right about the cost being less. As a Canadian, she is also the official head of state of my country. I, too, however, am outraged that Lizzie would side with the homophobes. Even though she is the head of the Anglican Church, she is also a head of state and needs to temper her divisive opinions. Here, she most certainly made a very huge royal blunder as they say.

  20. Tom Hamilton 6 Jul 2009, 8:04pm

    Good for her. Stop buggering each other and just love each other, oh and stop trying to modernise God.

  21. jonnielondon 6 Jul 2009, 8:10pm

    Tom, you seem to be contradicting yourself old chap. Please do open your mind and heart a wee bit there doll.

  22. @c.j.

    Sweden, Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium… are all monarchies and are probably more democratic than the rest of Europe (at least the east).

    However, I cannot for the life of me figure out why the Brits are so obsessed with the Queen. Is it because she smiles a lot?

    I remember her visit to my country last year. We all wished Gordon Brown would come instead of her. Money thrown out of the window, if you ask me; such a dissapointment.

  23. Leave the Queen alone. She is truly wonderful and we are very lucky to have her. Look what will come after her!!! Not pretty!

  24. but monarchy is not democratic. and it is a waste of money that could be spent in much better ways. One example could be scientific research to fight cancer, hiv-aids, other illness etc.

    Tell her to go and live in a Council Aprtmnt. Her son could pay with the money he makes baking cookies.

  25. if only we could do what the french did, why this country is obsessed with that stupid family is beyond me. it makes me ashamed to be british, living in a country where so many people look up to those vile people

  26. I wouldn’t touch this one with a ten-foot pole, except to say I like the sound of FoCAs.

  27. @c.j.

    Democracy is not just what is written on a paper. Just look at Russia. The quality of all the institutions of a certain country has to be taken into account.

    I think you should simply abolish the monarchy after the Queen passess away. Surely there cannot be a Brit alive who wishes to see Charles crowned…

  28. Oh, I don’t know Lucius…
    Queen Carolina I has a certain je ne sais quoi about it, no?
    A certain ring?

  29. Vo DongCung 6 Jul 2009, 9:22pm

    In my country, the throne been placed in museum for few hundred years ago!!!….

  30. It would not surprise me if this is not the first little sign that a return to Rome is on the cards for High Church Anglicans…
    Keith
    SALFORD

  31. Keith:

    Clever. C of E returns to Rome; Rome returns to Middle Ages; letsa alla singa Auld Land Syna !

  32. Gay republican 6 Jul 2009, 10:05pm

    She’s not elected. I don’t care what she thinks.

  33. #32.
    Bentham , my presh…
    Correction, pet, sorry…
    Rome, luvvie, never left the Miggle Ages….just look at the frox…and lace…and silks and satins and gunk and junk; knick- knacks and tat and bits of bone and virginity and celibacy.
    A celibate old man laying the law down to women and young people, his whole life having been lived on what is tantamount to another planet…

    K……………………..hahaha and the two words I have to type before sending off my latest garbage are ‘Dr’…and… ‘Curable’
    Nice tutch…!

  34. My Oh My – this sensationalist headline sure did bring out all the knobbly old republican toads from beneath their rocks croaking with glee at the opportunity to fly their tattered red flag and have their very Queeny Anti-Queenie rants!

    The Queen sent a standard letter in response to one of thousands she receives from all sorts of cranks every day of the week and we get this small chorus of Queen-haters manning their imagined revolutionary baricades! How ridiculous! As anyone who has worked for any public organisation knows, one responds to correspondence from nutters with the immortal phrase “I understand your concerns” just as one placates the local loon wandering down the shopping parade muttering to himself or to old ladies writing in to the council (yet again) to berate ‘the youth of today’. It is a very British response – ‘understanding concerns doesn’t mean agreeing with them.

    The great majority of British people love and respect the Queen – if extremist gay republicans want to alienate British society just like the Bishop of Rochester or Muslim fanatics do by ranting about gays then you just carry on and see the country turn against you. She is Our Queen So Get Over It.

  35. Brian Burton 6 Jul 2009, 10:33pm

    Right, pin back your Lug-Holes! Any one who dose not agree that Uk has a Queen as head of State. Then you will be sentenced to spend the night with DAVID SKINNER! and that would be worse than the Death Penalty!

  36. Gay republican 6 Jul 2009, 10:39pm

    Thomas, don’t be so pathetic. There’s nothing extremist about believing a modern, democratic republic over an outdated, elitist hereditary system.

  37. Gay Fan of the Queen 6 Jul 2009, 10:40pm

    The Queen is not homophobic, pathetic article. It’s her “job” to communicate with different parts of the Church. “Understand” their concerns doesn’t mean “support”. Her (and her mother!) have happily employed many, many gay people long before today, when it truely “wasn’t” acceptable to society. Leave her alone!

  38. Everyone witters on about the Queen not being democratically elected.
    Neither is the current leader of this government!!

    I detect a certain pot/kettle luminance differential scenario here.

  39. I might be wrong, of course, but I would be very surprised if the queen ever sent FCA any “letters of support”, more likely she is relying to letters FCA sent her instead. Understanding FCA concerns doesn’t mean she is taking sides; she is the epitome of impartiality.

    All the best.

  40. I am sure she is not homophobic. Twoe friends of mine who live inside the castle at Windsor in a grace and favour house. They both now meet the Royals on a regular basis since they did their Civil Partnership. Before that only the one of them with an official job met the Queen. Once they tied the knot the partner was introduced to the Queen (along with the new wives/hubbies) and they get invited to all the family parties for inhabitants of the castle. It seems she doesn’t meet girl/boyfriends and live-in-partners though.

  41. RobN – The current leader of the government was elected by his constituents as an MP. He is the leader of the biggest party in parliament and thus is the prime minister. That’s how it works. We do not have a directly elected prime minister.

  42. Pumpkin Pie 7 Jul 2009, 1:30am

    I understand that these letters are just official copy-pasta, and therefore not indicative of the Queen’s opinions, but do these letters get sent out to ANY officious-sounding group that forms? Would an openly white supremacist group receive one of these letters? If so, then I guess that’s fair, although she really needs to get some quality control in there. If not, then it’s yet another example of society’s double-standards: racism=bad, homophobia=OK. If this is the case, then we have a right to be angry about this, as her actions were homophobic: that such a two-faced attitude seems to be the norm in this country is not an excuse.

  43. Pumpkin Pie 7 Jul 2009, 1:33am

    Although, I should add that, although such correspondence could be promoting homophobia, I don’t think the Queen herself is homophobic (i.e. it’s just a bad call). I may not like the concept of a monarchy, but as a person, the Queen seems nice enough.

  44. isnt this politicl interfearence?

  45. Reality Check 7 Jul 2009, 2:16am

    PT – “Her letter of support for the breakaway anti-gay faction of the Church of England is collusion with prejudice.

    And this comment is collusion with prejudice against people who don’t bow and scrape before the gospel according to the gaystapo.

    PT – She has insulted lesbian and gay people

    She has offended no one except yourselves who get their knickers in a twist when anyone dares to suggest that you are not perfect and that we don’t have to pander to the homonazi.

    PT – “Her Majesty is aligning herself with a Christian fundamentalist grouping that is founded almost entirely on its opposition to gay priests and gay human rights. Homophobic prejudice and discrimination is central to its religious ethos.

    I have never read such utter rubbish. Just shows how ultra-sensitive you all are that you can’t stand ANYONE disagreeing with you. You obviously have a gargantuan dose of heterophobia.
    As to what the group is founded on, his comment shows that he is clutching at straws to try and bolster his ego and make himself sound important. No religious organisation of any kind anywhere is founded on one concept. If you think that you are pathetic beyond reason and blind as a bat to reality. I would suggest that you dump him immediately as he is obvious a liability to your cause.

    Eddy – Dear Tony, Comment No. 7: please provide your hard evidence that “the queen is not homophobic”.

    And can you provide any evidence (not opinion) that the Queens is afraid of homosexuals which is what homophobia is and please note that writing a letter to someone who she is head of is no indication that she is afraid of homosexuals.

    EDDY – This silly little woman, Liz Windsor, would have a fit if one of her sons or grandsons had dared to spread his wings and scream to all the world that he was gay!

    Rather a pathetic tirade don’t you think? In case you hadn’t noticed, none of them are homosexual.

    MARK – Another good reason for England becoming a Republic and finally getting rid of her and her gaggle of inbred royal parasites.

    No one is forcing you to live in England. You can always leave which is what you should do if you meant what you said.

    RN – It is connecting the fact that the church in question is homophobic,

    I have not come across any of them that are afraid of homosexuals which is what homophobic means. Your meaning that people are homophobic if they disagree with you is not supported by the dictionary. But then, I guess you are not happy unless you are demonizing someone because they don’t love you and your gospel.

    LIZI – if only we could do what the french did, why this country is obsessed with that stupid family is beyond me. it makes me ashamed to be british, living in a country where so many people look up to those vile people

    Why don’t you move to France then if it is all light and perfection.

    PP -Would an openly white supremacist group receive one of these letters?

    Typical red herring PP. As Pete said but you probably didn’t read, she is not afraid of homosexuals. If she was she would not invite them to and meet them at her events. Every time you insist that she is afraid of them you make yourself sound utterly stupid. Apart from a few

  46. Reality Check 7 Jul 2009, 2:18am

    Apart from a few rednecks, I don’t know anyone who is afraid of you. Having spent two years working with about 30 homosexuals hugs were the norm, not bashings.

    This was the bit missing at the bottom of the last post.

  47. Pumpkin Pie 7 Jul 2009, 2:34am

    PP -Would an openly white supremacist group receive one of these letters?

    Typical red herring PP. As Pete said but you probably didn’t read, she is not afraid of homosexuals. If she was she would not invite them to and meet them at her events. Every time you insist that she is afraid of them you make yourself sound utterly stupid.

    Ah, so she WOULD send a letter to white supremacists, seeing as how she invites them to and meets them at events?

    Apart from a few rednecks, I don’t know anyone who is afraid of you. Having spent two years working with about 30 homosexuals hugs were the norm, not bashings.

    Still working hard at “converting” them, are you? How many of them are “ex-gay” now?

  48. Pumpkin Pie 7 Jul 2009, 2:35am

    Ah, so she WOULD send a letter to white supremacists, seeing as how she invites them to and meets them at events?

    Seeing as how she invites and meets NON-WHITE PEOPLE that should be.

  49. Gonzo: Being that you are slightly left of Trotsky, I wonder whether you would have said the same when John Major was in power.
    One votes for a party based on it’s leader. Brown is leader by default.

    To paraphrase your quote: “That’s how it works. We do not have a directly elected constitutional leader”

  50. SO SAD that Britian has this old biddy as Head of State! Havent you anyone worthy to elect by the whole nation????? I cannot stand religion but “MOANARCHY” is far worse!!!!!

  51. Queen not homophobic? Oh wake up and smell the coffee! If any of her family told her they were gay she would be ashamed of them and tell them do not breathe a word to anyone about it and live a lie! Now if that’s not homophobic, what is! I wonder how many gay projects she has visited in her lifetime!

  52. If one reads the letters, it’s easy to see that she was being quite neutral … perhaps even dismissive given their request of her.

  53. If one actually reads the letter/s, it’s easy to see that she was being rather neutral … perhaps even dismissive given the group’s request.

  54. Brian Burton 7 Jul 2009, 6:00am

    Like I said, Her Majesty is not allowed to defend herself in public. So, I think her attackers on this thread are craven cowards.

    Reality Check, I would’nt like you trying to defend me, you pedantic old Queen!

  55. John M.J. 7 Jul 2009, 7:11am

    The Monarchy costs us taxpayers in the UK about eight million pounds per year – over seventy percent of that figure is spent on salaries. In the USA, a country five times the size of the UK in terms of population, the Presidency costs the USA taxpayer just over seven hundred million pounds (eight hundred and fifty million US dollars) – that is to say, almost one hundred times as much as our Head of State costs us per head of population. Worldwide the sums are the same. Every elected Head of State cost many times more to support in their roles than Monarchs do.

    Why is that? Simply because Monarchs are private citizens who claim expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties whereas elected Heads of States claim everything that they d***ed well can in order to feather their own nests – as all politicians always do!

    Give me a monarchy, most particularly a Constitutional Monarchy such as ours, anyday; it’s cheaper and ports more history and more of a sense of who we are and where we came from than any alternative system ever could.

    The Royal Office writes letters to hundreds of supplicants each day. It writes those letters in the most vague terms that it can manage. It’s publications like this one, Pink News, that sensationalise and cheapen and attempt to add unwarranted and unwanted meaning to those letters – most especially to this one.

    There is absolutely no evidence at all that any member of the Royal Family is homophobic but our Queen is legally, like it or not, Head of the Church of England and duty bound to reply to any letter from a bishop, or a number of bishops, of that Church when such a letter is sent to Her.

    And that’s where it all becomes a matter of how one interprets the reply sent from the Royal Office. Most people here don’t understand English as it is used in Government and Monarchical circles. You read into words meanings which are not meant and you, and this publication, take some slight at those things that were not meant. You wilfully forget that Government and our Monarchy use English absolutely and precisely and correctly whereas your interpretation of language is much more loose, imprecise and hurried. You interpret words in the venacular meaning of them whereas offialdom uses the OED; therefore you impute meanings to words that simply were never meant.

    It seems to me, also, that many people on this thread have only the most limited of understandings about the way our political systems work – as well as having a severely limited understanding of the place of the Monarchy in the politics of our country.

    We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional Monarchy wherein ONLY the main law making body is elected by universal suffrage. We are a partial democracy. Our government is very far indeed from being a democratically elected government. Government in our country is the result of a secondary and undemocratic selection process in which the Monarch plays no part. Republics, apart from electing their Heads of States, elect both government and legislature and the two are distinct and different – we only elect the legislature (and only one half of it, at that). Our government is selected by our legislature and that government has to be, whether he or she likes it or not, confirmed in office by our Head of State.

    This is a storm in a teacup. The letter, or the letters (if it or they even exist), has, or have, no meaning and this argument and discussion is vacuous, vapid, inane and without substance or meaning. Regardless of personal prejudice, needs, wants or desires our system works for us. The time to fix a system is when it’s broken and this one, ours, is most obviously not broken – if it was then this site couldn’t, and wouldn’t, exist – so why all the hot air? Because the Royal Office wrote to a Bishop and was as non-commital as it knew how to be? Because you don’t understand the arcane usage of English involved here? Because you don’t understand, because you don’t want to, the legal position of the Monarch with respect to the Bishops of the Church of England – our Monarch is bound by Law just as you and I are and She, or, in future, He, cannot ignore a letter from a Bishop or letters from Bishops.

    A standard reply, a reply which has no intrisic meaning (a reply which must have been a great disappointment to the Bishop of Rochester) was sent. Pink News has simply failed to interpret that reply correctly and has made a ‘mountain out of a molehill’ in order to get all of you stirred up. Good press, good copy – but bad journalism and inaccurate reporting!

  56. “Admitting that government is a contrivance of human wisdom, it must necessarily follow, that hereditary succession, and hereditary rights (as they are called), can make no part of it, because it is impossible to make wisdom hereditary…”
    (‘rights of man’)

    Get rid of them, really.

    In the case of Charles – abusing his position and talking nonsense on architecture and science – this is truly the case. No one would listen to this ridiculous man if he were anybody else. He’s a reasonable farmer; fine. But that doesn’t make him capable of being head of the state, armed forces and the church.

    And the cycle continues with grandson William, wasting taxpayers’ money by taking RAF helicopters (and crashing them) to visit his girlfriend. The best thing to do is pension them off, let them keep Sandringham and the channel islands and have done with it.

  57. A GOSPEL is preached, in order that people might change their ways, let us say, or their religion.
    Nazir -Ali said that homosexuals should ‘repent and change’ their ways.
    So far so bad.
    I do not care whether the Queen agrees with this man or not.
    She is a private individual and is entitled to her private views as is anyone else.
    What must be got through to her if she does not already know it, and I am sure she does already know it, and must be got through to everyone else from Ratzinger and Ali to the inhabitants of your local council sink-estate snug, is that homosexuality is not something that can be ‘repented of’ since it is a passive attribute, for want of a better word, much like blue eyes.
    It is inalterable and the application of electric wires will simply fry the brains, not change the orientation.
    I started in March on these pages contributing my silly nonsense in response to an article which suggested ‘treatment’ for this ‘illness’ and that took me back to advice that I almost adopted in my seminary days, 50 years ago. There my interest ends, in the fury that that advice has engendered in me for half a century. No! No! No! No! No! No! Noooo!!!
    I do not know and do not care about many of the issues on here; I only spring into action when I read of Clowns in Connecticut hollerin’ at minors’ demons; doctors advocating ex-gay theories and immigrant High Church clerics from a different culture advocating the same.
    I care not a jot whether the C of E is dis-established or not; I might think it a good idea but I am not on my soap-box about it.
    But I am on my soap-box with the dangerous notions from Dr. Narcosi, wherever he was from, from Connecticut’s demon seekers and from Rochester’s ill-informed bishop.

    We must not, on here, digress into other threads like the pros or cons of monarchy; leave those please for other discussions and concentrate on those at that time.
    We have enough fight on our hands just being let get on with our own lives and enacting and protecting the legislation, gained thus far, to ensure all that.
    Fragment in your purpose, squabble among yourselves on too many fronts and you will dissipate your energies.

    Concentrate on mobilising an assault, a blitz, on Rochester the likes of which it has not seen in its history; a gigantic, Kenny Everett style finger; an ‘UP YOURS’ Bishop; our Pridefest is coming to town, never mind Santa, in 2010..!
    Whether the ‘this’ or the ‘that’ is valid, monarchy/dis-establishment/puffery-at-the-palace… is not relevant here in the face of the likes of Ratzinger, Nazir Ali, Mumbo-Jumboists of colour, Narcosi and all the others; for make no mistake, they are all on the ‘phone to one another; all pissing in the same pot along with this Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.

    Keith
    SALFORD.

  58. Just imagine!
    Thousands upon thousands of bods in their wubbleyou, wubblyou, wubblyou dot kiniki dot whatever thongs and swimwear or, yummeee, their wubbleyou x 3 aussiebum dot com clouts.
    All on a summer’s day in downtown Rochester; hope the weather keeps fine..!
    What better than mockery to deflate these prats.
    Choppin’ heads off hasn’t worked over the centuries.
    Let’s see a few rasberry blowers in sexy knicks on artic. floats; a few gigantic fingers. A pity we can’t organise the same in the Vatican but that of course would be the invasion of a sovereign state.
    Keep shoutin’, being mouthy and above all be single-minded in your assault.
    The alternative is the repeal of that which has been gained so far.
    Religious fundamentalism is on the rise globally; the pendulum is swinging.

    Keith

  59. The Reverend Göran Koch-Swahne 7 Jul 2009, 8:35am

    Don’t you think this is in any way an endorsment! To reciproque telegrams from organizatons in meetings is routine in all European Monarchies. I remember particularily the telegram sent from King Olav V of Norway to the International Lesbian and Gay Association meeting in Oslo in 1988. And I remember several such from King Gustaf VI Adolph of Sweden from my days in the young conservatives.

  60. I’m an American, just visiting this site, but I wanted to comment.

    I don’t know all the ins-and-outs of how your government works, I haven’t studied it in years. But the progress regarding LGBT rights that began years ago in Europe and the UK is just now hitting my country…so I’m inclined to think that whether you have a monarch or a democratically elected Head of State doesn’t really matter, when it comes to this issue. We have a republic with a democratically elected President, but as of yet, only 6 states perform same-sex marriage, and not all of the states in our union have protections for gay & lesbian people. We’re only now about to extend the federal hates crimes law to include sexual orientation and gender identity. We have a long way to go, in comparison to you guys.

    And Keith — religious fundamentalism is not on the rise, at least not globally. Where I live, it’s hit its peak, and is actually in rapid decline.

  61. Kevin at #60
    Ok.
    Well that is your valid opinion and contribution and great to read it.
    I have lit the blue touchpaper on this particular firework; I’m gettin’ out of the way just in case I am right.
    I hope you are enjoying your visit, Kevin, sorry about the weather; nowt we can do about it,’fraid.
    Keith.
    Tnx for your contribution.

  62. I will not believe our Queen is homophobic. Her mother loved gay people. There is also a history of gay men in the royal family (although mostlty hushed up). She is not like her cousin the Queen of Spain who has publically proclaimed her negative views!

  63. …a bit like homosexuality, the weather, nowt can be done about that, either, except be acceptant of it.
    The problem is…getting that concept into the fat heads of some.
    Keith.

  64. Lezabella 7 Jul 2009, 9:31am

    I think what people are cheesed off (eeee did I really say that?) about is the fact that Elizabeth Mountbatten/Von-Battenberg nee Saxe-Coburg-Gotha stated that she ‘understood their concerns'; their ‘conerns’ are that the Church Of England is going too liberal/soft on homosexuality and that it’s allowing too many women in the clergy.

    I’m disappointed as a lesbian, but also I’m disppointed as a woman, since Liz is one too!

    We have to remmber that she IS a person with views even if she isn’t allowed to state them……..however, why send a letter to this particular organisation knowing it’s views?

  65. I love the Americans! I was at a London Hotel when the scandal broke about Pay for peerages and a somewhat confused American asked me what was a Peerage; I almost said £300,000 at the current rate. But I explained to him, leaving him as confused as before!

  66. Lezabella…angel.!
    In the way you exclaimed…’eeeeee’….
    Do I detect a Tynesider…?
    Love that accent if you are…
    Keith.
    SALFORD

  67. Ha ha no Keith, I’m not a Tynesider unfortunately, but I am Scouse! :)

  68. Oh…so you’re just up the road from me.
    And yours is just as beguiling…just lurve it…

    Oops…RobN’ll be at me for digressing again…nuuuuuuuuurse..!
    Haha..!

    ‘Nil carborundum desperandum, omnes,!’
    Keith.

  69. Anyone who supports ‘Moanarchy’ is the scum of the earth!!!!!

  70. Simon Murphy 7 Jul 2009, 10:55am

    Brian Burton: 55: You say: “Like I said, Her Majesty is not allowed to defend herself in public. So, I think her attackers on this thread are craven cowards.”

    Oh cry me a river. She chooses to be be the queen. She could leave it if she had any respect for democracy. She is a waste of money.

    Someone mentioned that her family costs £8,000,000 a year to run. That does NOT include the security bill which the MoD does not release figures. It is a LOT more than 8 mill though.

    Some people say she is a tourist attraction. Wrong – the history of the former British Empire is the tourist attraction. Liz herself may be popular but her wretched son Chuck is an utter moron who is absolutely unsuitable to be head of state.

    The best thing to do would be to allow Liz Windsor remain queen until she dies and then dismantle the whole thing.

    If Buckingham Palace and all the other palaces were turned into full time museums then Britain’s royal history could start earning some money for Britain instead of haemmorraging money from Britain like it does at the moment.

    As for the idea that Britain loves their royals. Well seeing as we’ve never been allowed a vote on whether to keep the old gal or get rid then it is not true to say that.

  71. I don’t agree with this
    she i taking sides or must realise that’s how it looks
    supporting evil makes her evil

  72. Its funny a group like FoCA don’t want gays and lesbians as they say its against bible teaching. Yet they have a woman as head of the church of England in the queen and bible says also the church can not be lead by a woman.

    If FoCA want to return to traditional biblical church values should the not be calling for the queen to be removed as head of the church?

  73. Queen of Queens 7 Jul 2009, 12:44pm

    Has anyone asked Prince Andrew what his views are on the matter?

  74. Queen of Queens 7 Jul 2009, 12:47pm

    sorry – I meant Edward! Oops *blush*

  75. Abi..!
    Correct at #71.

    I could not care less if they were to have a goat as Head of the Crutch of England or another as Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Crotch or had a dinosuar’s femur as Head of the Church of the Umpteenth Mars Bar.
    I don’t go in any of ‘em; none of their buildings.
    Just as long as they don’t suggest to me that I ‘repent and be changed’[Nazir Ali of Rochester]; or attempt to put wires about my bonce[Dr. Narcosi from around March 2009 on this site]; or scream at demons in my soul while I am in a catatonic state, supposedly of ‘possession’. [the Connecticut, U.S.A. mumbo-jumbo merchants of a few days back]
    Ckuff them all.!

    Keith.
    SALFORD………oooooo.! I am worked up into a lather over this..!
    Ha!

    Keep themselves to themselves; let me do the same and they can plait fog for all I give a ckuff.

    Keith.
    SALFORD

  76. Matthew (#15), do ignore the RobN character. You ARE welcome here. RobN is a sad self-hating loner in whom reactionary tendencies combine familiarity of only the most shallow stratum of gay and lesbian people. Another poster (the reputable Simon Murphy) reports that RobN indicated he recently voted for the British National Party (our UK party of white racist fascists and homophobes). Enough said.

    James (#24), pray tell what the fuck is “wonderful” about that pedestrian little woman Liz Windsor! What extraordinary contribution to human knowledge and progress has been made by this woman? What great creativity has this woman shown? What humanitarian or academic institutions have acknowledged her extraordinary contribution to humankind? Into the fire with her. She’s part of the sick establishment cancer that still holds sway on this benighted island.

    Thomas (#35). No, one does not write to bigots and fools with letters stating “I understand your concerns”. One writes instead stating “I do not understand your concerns and I wholly repudiate them!” OR one simply does not respond at all! Liz Windsor and her bunch of parasites however are all part of the symbiotic establishment. They support each other. They do NOT take stands against each other. I have had more than enough contact with such people to know precisely how they act. Generally Monarchy-Lovers who are not themselves part of the Establishment have no concept of how the system works. They look from afar at the glitter and the smiles, the window-dressing, the Trooping of the Colour, and like innocents and juveniles they can only adore. Instead of THINKING they choose to adore. Rather like religionists do.

    Mike (#62), if, as you say, Liz Windsor’s mother “loved gay people” then what did she do precisely, using her position of influence and authority, to demonstrate that love? Precisely what did she do to help us towards equality? What precisely did she do to instigate legislation and so forth? You say she “loved gay people” because you have heard that she tolerated servants who were gay – those accounts being circulated by the likes of gay cleaners, gay chefs, gay butlers, and the like. For all you know she found this kind of fawning person as amusing as she found Danny La Rue! That’s not “loving gay people”! Wake up! Into the fire with the entire royal family. Burn the lot of them!

  77. Erm, I’m not sure why so many people are slagging off the Queen when this defamatory article doesn’t even say what the hell was in the letters! And anyway, surely people are entitled to think what they want, we live in a democracy.
    Personally, I’m glad that we have a monarchy, because if she chooses, the Queen can still veto any idiotic law that passes her desk. This could be quite useful considering the useless shower we have in Parliament.

  78. Karen’s right. This article says NOTHING about what the Queen actually wrote beyond the generic “understands your concerns,” which is meaningless. The article inflames opinion and is made up primarily of Tatchell spouting off, about what he and we have no idea. THose of you ranting about a Republic are stupid. If the Monarchy can be abolished (which can’t be done legally, it’s a revolutionary act) than so can ANY institution, ANY right, including our own. 90% of the commenters have no idea what they’re angry at or talking about.

  79. Simon Murphy 7 Jul 2009, 3:54pm

    #78: Clay: You say:

    “If the Monarchy can be abolished (which can’t be done legally, it’s a revolutionary act)”

    Well it’s possible to have a peaceful revolution – Czech and Slovakia split without anyone being killed.

    All it would take is that when Liz Windsor dies that before Chuck Windsor assumes the throne that there be a referendum to see if the monarchy should continue. If the public decide that Chuck is unsuitable to be head of state (which is quite obvious in Chuck’s case) then Parliament should refuse to swear allegiance to him and a republic declared.

    I doubt somehow the British Army are going to start slaugtering repubicans.

    It may take a while for the changeover but it could done entirely peacefully in a short space of time.

  80. Eddy (76):

    RobN will no doubt hate me for defending him, but he did not vote BNP; he voted UKIP. I believe you were absent during the pre-election debates. But I will agree, and he will brag about it, that RobN is an incorrigable rascal.

    As for this news item, don’t you think the headline is a tad sensational? Why use the word ‘support’, when the Queen used the word ‘understand’? The difference is nowhere near subtle.

    As for the monarchy, it is likely that it will come to an end, in its present form, rather than passing it on to Carolina I as Keith imagined. Then, it will be anyone’s guess what will happen to organized religion in the UK.

    Fact remains, I too think the Queen is a rather nice person.

  81. Brian Burton 7 Jul 2009, 4:26pm

    Simon Murphy,
    Get it through your thick ignorant head. There will always be a
    Monach as head of state in my Country for just as long as you have a hole in your arse you wanten scum-bag.

  82. Oh, Brian, you do put your points rather colourfully! Your “colour” has made me smile. (Still rather easy to shoot a great big arse-sized HOLE in the above point, all the same!)

    Why on earth do you, or Bentham, think Liz Windsor and her family should continue to live a charmed life at the expense of the tax-payer simply because she’s “nice”!

    You can be “nice”, can’t you, Brian? So why aren’t you the reigning Monarch?

    Not connected well enough? Not got the right blood type, eh?

    Are these grounds for holding such an extraordinary position, whereby one parades around the globe and is worshipped and adored?

    Obviously “niceness” is not enough!

  83. Brian Burton 7 Jul 2009, 5:19pm

    Eddy,
    I have heard about you (King Size Prat) I think the terms that was used. I am not a vindictive person Eddy but you have just proved to me: You are a King Size Prat!

  84. C.O.N.C.E.N.T.R.A.T.E….!

    Boys!!

    I zhell zay ziss onlee von more time…
    Save your ire for Rochester’s Pride March next year.
    And stikkk it to ‘em…!
    Tell’ em to stikkk their church up their fazzums, spire first, for preference…

    Keith…
    …in a lather, still.
    SALFORD.

  85. The point is I do not believe the Queen meant to SUPPORT homophobia in the C of E.

  86. Living in a republic with its political parties, parliament, government and president failing to create any sense of national unity, I think a monarchy is a nice thing to have and it has benefits you take for granted until you lose them. On the other hand, monarchies are of course increasingly anachronistic for reasons those enthusiastic republicans on this thread have mentioned before me. This makes this institution hard to sustain… Sometimes reading this thread gives me the impression like you guys are reciting opinions from “The Man without Qualities” a great novel about the last years of Austria-Hungary – I mean it is great despite the fact it is so long it is virtually impossible to read it.

    Well anyway, I think one day all of you will look back at the time when Britain was still a monarchy with quite some nostalgia. I would not be surprised if the republicans among you would feel somewhat disappointed with your president because that’s what presidents are like. Of course you will still be able to say that at least he is elected and he will bugger off in 5 years time…

    Oh, and finally to those of you who say Britain will always be a monarchy, just remember the times when people said the British Empire will last forever…

  87. Sue Whitlock 7 Jul 2009, 11:38pm

    Telling the FCA that she ‘understood their concerns’ does not make HM homophobic but I do think it was an unwise move, given the virtual certainty that it would be misunderstood.

    Let’s see if she ‘gives her support’ to the effort by the Foreign Office to offer support to gay people in the former British Colonies. That would even the score up a bit.

  88. john sharp 8 Jul 2009, 12:42am

    lets get rid of inherited stupidity
    get rid of the Monarchie
    get rid of the religious establishment
    get rid of the Lords
    we need a real republic

  89. Sweden – Monarchy
    Denmark – Monarchy
    Netherlands – Monarchy
    Norway – Monarchy
    All the above not only peaceful properous nations but socially aware and VERY gay friendly.

  90. Mihangel apYrs 8 Jul 2009, 9:08am

    There is (still) such things as “royal perogative”, and “orders in council” that enable the govt to bypass Parliament when it wants to make law. Declaring war also comes under the former category – ie the govt decides to take us to war and doesn’t have ot make a case for it.

    Under our unwritten constitution the monarch can refuse any bill coming before him or her. The last one to do it was Queen Ann, and if it happened today there would be a crisis.

    Also under our constitution, Parlaiment proclaims the monarch, as they did ever after the arrival of George I by invitation of Parliament.

  91. It is unclear that Her Maj supports this breakaway group or not. But she is head of the Church of England, she has to say something. The fact she ‘understands their concerns’ is bland. I ‘understand’ their concerns too. I still think they are idiots, misguided and at times malicious.

    This is the problem you have when the head of state is head of church. At the end of the day, it must be remembered the Church of England was built on the family values of Henry VIII and theft. He wanted to divorce catherine of Aragon, because at some hunting lodge in what is now Newington Green, N1, he saw a tastier bird called Anne Boleyn. The pope wouldn’t let him, so Henry decided he had the personal link to god and ransacked all the monasteries.

    That’s why the Bishop of Rochester is in the position he is, to make such stupid statements and demonise honest, decent people for no other reason than their sexuality.

  92. All those who support the monarchy seem to be able to say nothing in its favour beyond “She’s a nice person”, and “It’s a nice idea”!

  93. Well, Eddy, although I am a proud citizen of a confused republic rather than an obedient British subject, here is my case for a monarchy:

    – In a set-up like Britain, the monarch as head of state fulfills a merely ceremonial function. This has been described well as early as Bagehot’s The English Constitution.
    – What the monarchy does is it provides the country with a sense of unitiy transcending political conflict. This means government can go ahead with its policies and political fights can be fought in parliament because there is always the monarchy as an expression of common values.
    – As presidents do not fall from heaven but are usually candidates of political parties, their ability to carry out this function is smaller than monarchs. So unless you want a presidential form of government which would be alien to Britain, that is, if you want a merely ceremonial presidency, it is going to be less efficient than a monarchy.

    This is part of the reason why most European monarchies tend to be nice places. Of course there are many other, arguably more important reasons too. The above argumentation is only true of course if the majority of the people accept the monarchy as an institution. As soon as the majority start to consider the monarchy as anachronistic and absurd – which it no doubt is from a certain point of view – it will seize to fulfill these functions and a republic is going to be a better option.

  94. Andy, thank you for your elaboration.

    To deal with each of your justifications for monarchy, in order:

    – “fulfils a merely ceremonial function”.
    True. And ritual and ceremony is important to human beings. But have you not been moved by ritual and ceremony portrayed in dramas on stage and screen? The roles were all played by actors: none of them having “blue-blood”. The point: we can have ceremony and ritual without having to support a large privileged family of blue-bloods.

    – “there is always the monarchy as an expression of common values”
    False. There are thousands and thousands of us who do not feel we share common values with the British Royal Family. Diana’s funeral showed without question that millions of us shared her values but not those of her ex-husband and her parents-in-law!

    – “As presidents do not fall from heaven but are usually candidates of political parties, their ability to carry out this function is smaller than monarchs.”
    You ascribe to the British Royal Family complete political non-affiliation. NONSENSE. They are TORY through and through! They live the Tory lifestyle. Tories hold the Royal Family as their models. So, let’s say you now accept this point but suggest that any ordinary citizen who might be elected will have a bias. Well, of course, at the end of the day, every individual in this country does. But do you really believe we could not select somebody in whom we all fairly happily have faith? It might be the founder and leader of some charity? It might be a profound writer who has touched many of us. It may be an ex-politician even, whom we have all come to see and generally upright and just. What an incentive the role would be for us all, don’t you think? Instead, we have this very system whereby “the firm”, as the Royal Family have been dubbed, is impenetrable.

  95. Eddy, I do not think we disagree in our appraisal of the situation in Britain today. As I said, a monarchy is a nice thing to have if it works. For you it obviously does not. If you represent the majority of Britons, then I do not think you will have a monarchy for long.

    I think the royal family’s political affiliation as described by you is still much more subtle than the affiliation of any elected official. Can you name existing republics that have been successful at electing respectable, non-political people to be head of state for several consecutive terms? I honestly cannot.

    My assumption is that you have good chances of getting A republic in Britain. I do not think it is going to be the republic you would like to have though. I think that will be the case because the only difference between a president and a monarch in a parliamentary democray is that the former is elected. I understand that it is an important difference to you, but as far as performance goes, I think your expectations from a republican set-up are irrealistic.

  96. RobN “Gonzo: Being that you are slightly left of Trotsky, I wonder whether you would have said the same when John Major was in power.”

    Er, yes I would. That’s just the constitutional set-up we currently have in this country. The prime minister is the leader of the largest party in parliament. You’re confusing us with the United States where the head of government is directly elected and can be of a different party affiliation to the majority in the legislature.

    “One votes for a party based on it’s leader. Brown is leader by default.”

    Not necessarily. Some people might vote for a party because they think the local candidate is an effective constituency MP, or they broadly agree with the party’s policies. That doesn’t mean they like the leader. Do you think the people who keep re-electing staunch left-wingers like Dennis Skinner actually liked Tony Blair?

  97. Brian Burton 8 Jul 2009, 12:54pm

    Listen you Jug-headed Syclops Anti-Monach Twits! Our Monach saves us from absolute dictatorship. A judge cannot be dismissed from the judicery unless the Monach signes the dismissal order. There are many more things the Monach protects us from —Guess?

  98. “Our Monach saves us from absolute dictatorship.”

    Yeah, because monarchs have a history of opposing dictatorships don’t they……….

  99. Brian, you are one of those that sound like a character from Musil. Read the book. It really is great. Although you can kill with it: either by dropping it on someone’s head or by making someone read it at one sitting.

  100. Brian Burton 8 Jul 2009, 1:40pm

    I dom’t care who says what about the head of state of my Country. Being head of our Armed Forces and universally loved. You puney lot of excuses for a humane society. would, you prefer some expense consuming, crook of a politician as head of state would you?…. Listen you Jug-heads, The Queen earns her keep by the thousands of tourists she and her Gaurdsmen bring in to this country every year. Now, what would happen if one of your crooked politicians was in power…ZERO you crass clowns!

  101. Bishop Ioan 8 Jul 2009, 1:54pm

    I’m not overly fond of the Windsors, but I would like to see a full text of this letter before taking Her Majesty to task.

    That being said, it is a scandal that an individual such as Nazir was made Bishop of Rochester. He is a scandal to spiritual people everywhere. If you want to work to oust someone start with the erm, good bishop.

  102. Brian Burton 8 Jul 2009, 6:05pm

    Bishop loan?
    Not another Barmy Bish! You sound like a real ‘chicken plucker, you are certainly a wine taster!

  103. Bishop Ioan 9 Jul 2009, 9:34am

    Excuse me Brian, but have I ever treated you with anything but respect? I am gay and openly support full rights for gay people. Try to act like an adult once in a while.

  104. Brian Burton 9 Jul 2009, 8:52pm

    Bishop loan,
    Sorry Bish. I apologize, I have been chewing rocks rather on this predominantly ANTI-Monachist thread and lashing out a bit. I have been monitoring for years, Republican regimes around the world. Whilst Republics have had vast political up-heavals, Our monachist society has remained stable.

  105. Andy & Steve 10 Jul 2009, 10:56am

    Ironic really that all these god fearing English folk are happy having a German as Head of State.

    And, as for all the twaddle about Her Madge bringing tourists to the country… CRAP. Our history brings tourists to this country. That is the past – and is exactly where the Monarchy belongs.

    The piss taking of the world’s richest woman whining about not having enough taxpayers money to keep her extended family in the style to which they have, unfortunately, been allowed to become accustomed should point up to even the most virulent arch royalists that they are mugs for supporting this out dated anachronistic sham.

    We all live in the 21st Century. Monarchy belongs to the past – when people were hoodwinked into touching their forelocks and “knowing their place”.

    Of course to cap it all we’re supposed to believe that Her Madge is “chosen by God” – so that’s two myths supporting each other…..

  106. Bishop Ioan 10 Jul 2009, 12:35pm

    No problem Keith and apology accepted. I simply do not feel competent to comment on the message sent without seeing the text. I am 100% against characters such as the Bishop of Rochester who use their post to spew misogyny and hatred of GLBTQ people. If anyone should repent it is he.

  107. Bishop Ioan 10 Jul 2009, 2:44pm

    Erm, sorry, Kieth, I meant Brian

  108. People here speak of the demise of the constituion and about the Queen being a dictator, un elected. Well, I think that’s a little outdated. The Queen effectively signed away the constitution a while ago, thanks to Gordon Brown and his secret deal with the EU, and as for unelected, what is the EU commison if not unelected, self appointed and unaccountable. What’s happening to Britain thanks to successive governments selling it down the river to Europe negates any comments about the Queen, the constitution and whether or not she was elected. The EU owns us and holds the Crown these days, not the Queen.

  109. What is being said about the Queen in terms of ‘the constitution’ and her being ‘unelected’ holds no water today because the Queen signed away the constitution some time ago thanks to Gordon Brown’s secret deal with the EU commission, that unelected, unaccountable, self appointed dictatorship.

  110. Brian Burton 11 Jul 2009, 11:40am

    Bishop loan,
    You are Boy-mad! fancy getting names mixed! BOY-MAD, who is’nt?

  111. Andy and Steve, so good to read your words. What a good idea of yours to fill in the web box with the address of The National Secular Society! I must try to remember to do the same.

  112. Brian Burton 11 Jul 2009, 3:09pm

    The only thing that sustains me through life is the consciousness of the immense inferiority of everybody else, now this is a feeling I have always cultivated.

  113. You AND every member of the Royal Family, Brian! :-)

    Do you remember Edward being caught referring to visitors to Windsors Palace as “the grockles”?

  114. Brian Burton 12 Jul 2009, 9:46pm

    Eddy,
    Grockles is strictly an Isle Of Wight Tetm for ‘oveners,’ thats visitors to the Island. Should you ever be privaledged to visit same. Lunch at the Bowsprit Restaurant on Gurnard seafront. It’s my favourite eating place. I lived on the Island for seventeen years.
    Incidently, I never gossip about Royalty!

  115. Brian Burton 12 Jul 2009, 11:39pm

    Eddy,
    I think I’ll call you ‘Steady Eddy’ from now on. You have a steady flow Nikki-knock-noo flowing my way, and please don’t ask me to marry you, will you Eddy?

  116. Brian, you might be interested to know that when I first started visiting these threads I thought you were sound, but just lately it has seemed to me your comments have been rather off the wall.

    I just react to comments, not the people who write them. For example, if RobN suddenly started writing things which were supportive of gay activism, of furthering the fight for true gay equality, I would applaud his comments immediately.

  117. Brian Burton 13 Jul 2009, 11:51am

    Steady EDDY,
    You must not adopt this ‘Holier Than Thou’ stance all of a sudden.
    Let me say that I think ALL comments on these Pink threads are valid, just as enyone elses are. You cannot take it upon yourself to ‘pigion hole’ or indeed, sit as Judge and Jury on any of the people offering comment. If it’s strictley my support of RobN you object to? I could object to you siding always with Simon Murphy. Simon Murpy and I are always at odds on these threads, but, that dose not stop me from Liking him. Now, Steady Eddy, I have always thought of you as an ‘Arse-Licking gutter-snipe, but that dose not stop me Licking you either. Life is too short Eddy. You are probably young and the young must be passionate and that’s you Eddy!
    When I was on Chemo-theripy for cancer (now cleared thank God) I had an appointment with my chiropodist. The green-leaves of my summer was, I felt, rappidly turning. The lady examined my toenails and told me they were about to fall off because of Chemo.
    Since then, I and people like RobN, I suppose, have become ‘White Van Men,’ a bit recless but would first do no harm!
    Take it easy sweet Steady Eddy X.

  118. I am an American and a history buff. I especially enjoy English history prior to James I.

    Regarding this letter. John in #56 sums up all the best points anyone could possibly make. Please read his post in full.

    Regarding the benefits of Queen Elizabeth, Prime Minister Tony Blair made it pain as day to me. It would be of enormous benefit to President Obama if once a week he could sit down or walk with an American who was alive in World War II, who had personally known and been advised by President Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush – who had had lived through and been a vital part of the Korean War, Cuban Missile Crisis, the entire Cold War, the building of and tearing down of the Berlin Wall, the Berlin Air Drop, the Vietnam War, all Middle Eatearn Wars, the 60’s domestic unrest, the race civil rights riots, the changing of the workplace to accomadate women, the space program …. just think of the history between 1952 and now. What a powerhouse, what a treasure of advice this would be for President Obama …. all quite condfidential, AND all quite non-political.

    An amazing asset to a political leader. Frankly, as an American, I envy the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and of Canada with the Queen is able to visit. She is an amazing AND non-political asset to the politicians of your countries. I wish we had such an asset built into our system.

    We have wonderful advisors but they are all politically biased – quite biased, very biased. No one ONLY has the best interests of the country in mind as Queen Elizabeth and the Windsors do. They need not seek wealth or power or political position – only the best for the Common Wealth and the United Kingdom and Canada and Australia etc. It really is a brilliant system when you think of it.

    At least that is my two cents worth from across the pond.

  119. Richard, #119, yes, it no doubt is “nice” for our PMs to sit down with this simple woman who has lived through so many PMs and known them all. But I put it to you your Obama could just as easily go and sit down with an old woman in the United States who has lived through a stream of US Presidents! Furthermore, your Obama could locate, even better, some old guy or gal who is not just “nice”, and well-behaved due to a life-time of gracious and privileged living, but some old guy or gal who maybe was a lecturer in politics throughout that long stream of Presidents. Now wouldn’t they be able to offer some reflections of great quality? This Queen of ours has never applied herself to any rigorous thought or study, never saw the inside of a university as any kind of student.

    You say the Queen only has the interests of this country at heart. What evidence do you have for that? Have you been her psychoanalyst over the past five decades? Richard, the Queen is part of the Tory establishment of England! She is part and parcel of the Anglican Church, the Conservative Party, and every hare and hound we have! Like other members of the English aristocracy she holidays in parts of Scotland which her forebears have commandeered from the Scots for their own use. How do you feel about aristocracy? Do you not think they are an anachronism?

  120. Brian Burton 14 Jul 2009, 12:50pm

    Steady Eddy,
    How ungracious of you to treat our American Cousin Richard in that callous, demanding fashion? Americans can only know British Royalty from what they read, or are told by word of mouth. I suspect you do not know Royalty, not even as good as Richard. Richard…did you know that the Late Queen Mary never ate bread and butter with her fingers. She always ate bread and butter with a knife and fork. When I look around the world, at many Republican Countries on the one hand. They have more than often been in deep termoil. Britain’s Monachy, on the other hand, has kept my country stable and for which I’ll be eternally greatful. The Queen dose what she dose out of ‘Duty,’ somthing which is sadly lacking in Britain today. I knew a man who worked for Royalty for twenty five years. He told me The Royal Family are our best hope fore the future of this Country. Well, I certainly agree there. Take it easy Sweet Eddy x.

  121. Brian, why is the Duke of Edinburgh living in Buckingham Palace and not you? Is he a more worthy human being than you? I say he is not! I say that you should have an absolutely equal chance of acquiring that position as he.

  122. Brian Burton 15 Jul 2009, 12:40pm

    Eddy thank you, I thought for a moment you were not speaking.

    The reason Why the Juke of Edinburgh is living in Buckingham Palace is because he is the Queens Leagle Spouse. This entitles him to live with his wife, even if she is a Queen.

    The reason Brian Burton dose not Live in Buckinham Palace, is because I am a working-class peasent. Therefore, I prefer to Live with my Civil Partner in a Bungalow by the sea. The Solent, to be exact. All the huge Passenger Liners pass my way. My Partner and I met and fell in Love thirty nine years ago and we are still madly in Love now. We Civil Partnerd three years ago. I tell you these things Eddy because I think you are basically a nice person…..See you…..don’t be a stranger!

  123. “Basically a nice person”, eh? Well, thank you, Brian! :-)

    I think you are your Civil Partner should have the chance to live in Buck Palace, Windsor, Sandringham, and all the rest of the royal joints. I think we all should have the right. Yeah, it may be one great big competition and both you and I may not stand a cat in hell’s chance against other contenders, but I think we should have the chance and regardless of our backgrounds.

  124. The Queen is a saintly woman – a champion of all that’s best about this country, with its many traditions and freedoms. If you don’t like her stewardship, move to a republic (that’s why the EU and the USA were created)! The Monarchy (in whatever country) has actually been the main protector of democracy / freedom – and dictators often rise via the powers invested in unchecked democratic republics (once we killed King Charles I a mad fundamentalist dictator, Oliver Cromwell, took charge and banned Christmas, as well as hunted down homosexuals!). In fact, many have pointed out that Hitler wouldn’t have become leader of Germany if they’d have held onto their Monarch (Churchill was one of the first to point this out). Here are some republican dictators – Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussain, etc – none of whom were / are very favourable to gay rights! Many Latin American democracies have spawned modern-day dictatorships, too, with their inability to stop the army or overly powerful elected Presidents.

    Because the Queen is a devout Christian does not make her automitically homophobic! And the fact that she employs many gay men and lesbians doesn’t make her a raving gay libber! Life is not that simplistic. If someone does not support the liberal gay movement (which isn’t that powerful or large, even amongst many gays – lots of whom are quite traditionalist and conservative) it DOES NOT make them homophobic…It just means that they might be better at appreciating the fact that it takes all sorts to make a world and that there are far more people out there who aren’t concerned about gay marriage and forcing ancient institutions and people of faith to ditch thousands of years worth of teaching just to keep a small minorty happy. She is known to receive Communion often, and to hold traditional Anglican Christian beliefs, though would be as aware as the next person that many clergy are gay (whether they act on it or not).

    Why do so many on here think the world is made up of “evil homophobes” and / or “perfect gay clones”!? These are two extremes of the one rainbow…and most live happily in the middle, without ever resorting to irrational hate.

    God Save The Queen! Long may she reign over us!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all