Reader comments · Comment: Why won’t the Queen embrace the queens? · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Comment: Why won’t the Queen embrace the queens?

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. While I welcome this article, I think that the generation the Queen comes from is somewhat different. I know many older people who just do not like to discuss the sexuality of another person. Could it be that the Queen is the same?

    I agree that she should make some kind of commitment or comment to the LGBT community however, I do think that we could be waiting for quite some time.

    1. Bud Clark 1 Jun 2012, 3:28pm

      That certainly didn’t stop the late Queen Mother, who famously said to her staff,

      “Will one of you queens bring this old Queen a drink?”

      And it has been said for many years that the Royal staff was a refugium for gay men, though they weren’t allowed to be “out of the closet.”

      That was and is certainly wrong, but OTOH the Queen has tried to protect the Monarchy from “scandal” … not that she has SUCCEEDED (chuckle).

      1. However, referring to staff as ‘queens’ (a demeaning term in some respects) in private is completely different from publicly referring to or acknowledging GMFA, for example.

    2. A suggestion that the queen comes a different generation, would first imply she was part of any generation. Come on. She is privilaged above and completely out of touch with any generation. It is not like she just crawled out of the slums or is intellectually and socially castrated idiot. The royals are homophobic.

    3. 9 out of 14 countries where Elizabeth II is Queen still consider homosexuality to be a criminal act. So she could make a huge difference by speaking up for equal gay rights, it is quite shocking that she does not.

      1. Why should the Queen make a stand on criminal law on this issue when she has made no comment on the rights or wrongs of any other criminal law in any Commonwealth country?

        1. Are you writing this in a professional capacity Sara?

          1. I am totally lost in what professional capacity you could be suggesting there, Pavlos …

          2. Perhaps Sara might enlighten us Stu if you’d only give her a chance before jumping down my throat (figuratively speaking of course) .

  2. Is anyone surprised? She has position and status for one reason and one reason alone – her ancestors were bigger swines than yours or mine.

    I deeply and profoundly resent the concept of being her “subject” before I even consider the fact that she has consistently treated us as non-people.

    1. This x1000

      That we are still living in a constitutional monarchy is utterly unforgivable.

      1. Spanner1960 1 Jun 2012, 8:50pm

        Well what would you prefer? President Bliar?

        1. Even worse, President Osborne, President Cameron or President Clegg Aaaaargh!

    2. de Villiers 1 Jun 2012, 5:13pm

      I am a republican but your comments do seem unnecessarily bitter. I have English friends who are not royalists but I doubt that they would “deeply and profoundly resent” having a Queen.

      And, in all case, the passeport of my English partner describes him as as a ‘British Citizen’.

  3. I’ve always wondered what her opinions on LGBT individuals are, I’ve been tempted to write a letter over the past few years, since she has to reply to every one- I might just do that.

    I don’t think we should jump to the conclusion that she is homophobic, or unsupportive though, has anyone ever directly asked the question?

  4. A disappointingly stirring and unesersary article. This adds no value to public debate or equality. With gay rights being such a current political topic the Queen could not comment even if she was desperate to. Her public political neutrality is her biggest value to the nation. When sexuality is no longer a political issue she, or her successors, will be more able to voice an opinion. But then why would they.

    1. My life – and presumably yours – is not “political”. We are flesh and blood living and breathing human bloody beings.

      Being LGBT is no more political than being blue-eyed. Stop endorsing your own de-humanisation.

      1. I agree with you on that point, however, whether we like it or not, the issue of homosexual rights, focusing in particular on equal marriage, is a political issue. For the Queen to express her views may be seen as endorsing a particular side to the debate overstepping her powers where she is to be politically neutral. Perhaps she should have done something in the past, however the current climate prevents her from doing so.

        1. Couldn’t agree more on all parts Richard. When it comes to ANY political view we have no clue as to the Queens thoughts because she isn’t allowed to voice them. And as you have already said, like it or not ( and I don’t particularly like it) homosexual equity is very political at the moment. Anything that has to be sorted out in parliament is political and right now our equal rights are up for discussion.

    2. Kerry Hollowell 1 Jun 2012, 1:55pm

      why shouldn’t the queen comment? Obama has done wonders by stating that he is personally in favour of gay marriage. The queen should say something and acknowledge the LGBT community, we pay taxes and play vital and important roles in the British society, she welcomes and identifies with all other communities why not ours?
      By saying nothing she is saying much! She doesn’t care and doesn’t value us.

      1. Yes! Excellent argument. And I absolutely agree – while the statement by President Obama had no practical effect, it signalled an attitude change.

        People engage in open hatred of us because there is a social and institutional acceptance of it. Voices who have influence could change that. Example – Princess Diana shaking hands with Adrian Ward-Jackson in an AIDS ward did more for understanding of HIV amongst people than any amount of stupid bloody leaflets with tombstones on them. It was a powerful message about HIV+ people and destroyed the stigma and ignorance of being untouchable.

      2. de Villiers 1 Jun 2012, 5:17pm

        In the ten years that I have lived in England, I have never heard the Queen comment on any political issue. I am not sure of the value in having a Head of State who does not stand for anything in particular. But, in all case, if the Queen makes no comment on any political issues it is unsurprising that she makes no comments on the gay equal rights.

        1. Deep down I would prefer a head of state that was not afraid to publically share their views. However, with a head of state who is (usually) no more than a figurehead/ceremonial (although constitutionally could be much more) – its not surprising that potentially controversial matters are not discussed publically.

      3. Spanner1960 1 Jun 2012, 10:36pm

        Because if the Queen were to take sides, or demonstrate any political bias whatsoever, there would be Republicans baying for her blood. She is a figurehead, no more than that. There are many times I wish she would have stood up to her governments, particularly in handing over out constitutional rights to a bunch of bloody foreigners, but that’s just the way it is.

        By saying nothing, she is saying nothing. No more, no less.

    3. She is supposed to represent all of us. Peter is right; she needs to do more.

      We have four days of hysteria, bunting, barges and beacons… The nation has gone into a trance. Like out of an Orwell novel.

      1. How is she NOT representing LGBT people?

        I see the jump that Tatchell making as illogical.

  5. Jan Bridget 1 Jun 2012, 12:16pm

    Whilst I think it unlikely that she knew what LYSIS (Lesbian Youth Support Information Service – a long distance support service for young lesbians) meant, nevertheless during 1992 as part of the Queen’s 40th Anniversary of Accession to the throne, LYSIS was invited to submit an application to The Royal Anniversary Trust. We did and were awarded a Bronze Certificate, signed by the Queen, “in recognition of the completion of a project of long term benefit to the nation in The Royal Anniversary Trust’s Challenge.” Jan Bridget

  6. Whilst I think this is an issue that is worthy of consideration and I agree it would be good to see the Queen making a stance on LGBT issues – I do wonder about five matters in relation to this:

    i) Whilst I can understand the timing of the article in order to make it topical – I do think it could have waited till after the Jubilee weekend before knocking the monarchy. (I am a republican by nature but fond of the Queen).
    ii) I am not sure that the Queen needs to support particularly LGBT charities to demonstrate her suport for gay issues. Other charities support LGBT people too.
    iii) In relation to the Admiral Duncan bombing – this demonstrates nothing – she also did not visit those hurt in the Brixton or Brick Lane bombings. Nor did she visit victims of every IRA atrocity.
    iv) When Clare Dimyon received her MBE for services to LGBT people I understand discussion about her work was made and this was reasonably knowledgeable discussion from the Queen. I also understand when she

    1. Sorry was meant to thumbs up rather than thumbs down! Some good points raised Gary.

    2. honoured Beverley Knight there was discussion about her work with THT and her support of LGBT people.
      v) There have been several pieces of discrete evidence of the Royal Household moving with the times including same sex partners of Ambassadors, foreign dignatories and famous people being invited to official functions and events.

      Yes, could do better.

      No, is not engaging – is doing so slowly and without fuss.

      1. Some excellent points made there Gary!! :)

  7. I don’t think the Queen divides the country into categories in any speech, anywhere. And it’s silly to refer to “the Queen’s Speech” to Parliament because she doesn’t write it, the government of the day does.

    Hre mother, the QQueen Mother, was famously :gay friendly” as was her grandmother, Queen Mary, but neither of them ever referred to it.

    1. I know someone who used to work for the Queen Mother and he has stated that she was very gay friendly. I think that just becuase The Queen does not shout it from the rooftop as Mr Tatchell would prefer, it does not mean to say that she is anti-gay

      1. auntie babs 1 Jun 2012, 12:43pm

        And I seem to recall Princess Di was very gay friendly, and if I may recall a bit more the first famous person to visit an AIDS Hospice and shake hands with an AIDS sufferer?

        1. You’re right! I remember when Princess Di first visited HIV/AIDS patients a lot of the media were asking why she was shaking hands without wearing gloves etc and trying to whip up hysteria around the disease. She was a fantastic advocate for the HIV charities and I believe that she was patron of quite a few.

  8. auntie babs 1 Jun 2012, 12:27pm

    I could really go to town on this but I will pick on just one point for now….

    “Besides, there’s solid evidence of regal prejudice. Gay staff in the Royal Household used to be banned from bringing their partners to the annual Christmas Ball at Buckingham Palace; whereas heterosexual staff were always invited to attend with their partners. This homophobic discrimination was exposed by the LGBT human rights group OutRage! in 1995. It was only after a protest outside the palace and the ensuing bad publicity that the royals dropped the ban.”

    …so how many organisations would welcome their gay employess partners with open arms to their staff parties prior to 1995? Not too many I bet.

    A very badly flawed article in my opinion.

  9. Archbishop Cranberry 1 Jun 2012, 12:29pm

    A disappointing article from Tatchell. This is a weekend to celebrate and lift our spirits in difficult economic times.
    Whilst we may all one day have to be in full time work at the age of 86 thanks to many of us losing our pensions, she chooses to do so, putting duty before retirement.

    Not many people spend 60 years in a job they had no choice in, and do it in as much style as her.

    1. If I were paid as much as she is for “regal duties”, i’d sure as hell work as long as necessary.

      The royals are social parasites.

      They have position because of lineage? The people of the UK support them financially for one single reason: who their parents were, and who their parents’ parents were, and so on.

      honestly, I find that disgusting.

  10. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Jun 2012, 12:30pm

    At least an acknowlegement of our existence would be welcome. I don’t see why this is an issue for the royals. You would think in this day and age, some of the lesser royals, the grandchildren at least would be able to say something. What about Princess Margaret’s son?

    Though they are not royals or aristocrats, I wonder if the Middleton’s support equal marriage, maybe Pippa and her brother?

    1. I really don’t see it as an issue for the Royals – particularly the likes of William, Catherine and Harry.

      I doubt the Queen is that concerned either given various reported comments.

      I think this is Tatchell (as good as he often is – although not impervious to misjudging things) merely taking advantage of the Diamond Jubilee to dust off his republican credentials.

  11. This article is spiteful, and strikes me as one of those ‘should I sleep on it?’ articles that clearly wasn’t slept on. A shame.

  12. I’ve been wondering; if in the future i married, or had a civil partnership, with a royal prince…. what would my title be?

    1. It would be interesting to see how convention would follow – but if you follow the Equality Act then the monarch such bestow some title eg Duke etc

    2. Dan Bidewell 1 Jun 2012, 1:17pm

      None. Titles are transferrable by marriage not civil partnership.

      1. Then if that did happen, then we’d have reason to question protocol and the laws surrounding such protocol, but as far as I’m aware that’s not likely to happen in the near future

      2. Titles can also be bestowed by the Queen.

        Every one of her childrens spouses (with the exception of Annes second husband, Timothy Laurence) has had a title bestowed on them.

        Questions would legitimately be asked if one was not bestowed merely due to the orientation of a Royal Prince or Princess.

        1. Princess Anne’s first husband didn’t have a title either (I believe he refused one). The wives get a title purely by virtue of marrying a man with one, it’s no different from being called Mrs – it isn’t held independently.

          1. However, Mark Phillips was offered a peerage from the Queen, which he declined.

          2. Yes, as I said. He certainly wouldn’t have been made royal though, just got a third-rank title like earl (like Lord Snowdon), there’s no UK tradition of men gaining rank through marriage alone – the husband of a Scottish countess in her own right, if himself untitled, remains untitled. I suppose that might be used as a precedent for an untitled man marrying a titled one. It’ll be interesting to see.

          3. Rehan

            Its an interesting area. If you look at it from the angle that all people who have accepted bestowments of titles from the Queen on marrying have been marrying a male member of the Royal family – then if a prince were to marry a male partner, then surely precedent would suggest that a title should be bestowed – although of course it would remain within the monarchs gift. Logic would suggest a title would be appropriate.

          4. No Stu, that’s not what I mean at all: women marrying high-ranking men are not ‘bestowed’ with titles, they merely take on their husband’s rank (just as a married woman used to be known as Mrs Fred Bloogs) – they have nothing independently. Men marrying a woman of higher rank, however, do not take on her rank in the pecking order, so there’s no reason why a man marrying a man should do so either. (This all says as much about what a woman’s role is or was seen to be.)

          5. @Rehan

            Isn’t that what I just said in different words?

          6. I don’t think so, Stu – the point is that a woman marrying a royal man automatically gets a title, simply by marrying; the Queen doesn’t ‘bestow’ these titles. It’s not the same for a man.

          7. I took Stu to comparing the fact that in the automatic bestowing of honours the royal member of the couple was male and in a gay couple the royal member of the couple may be male – so there is some correlation.

      3. Tim Chapman 1 Jun 2012, 8:57pm

        Yeah. It’s not right that if Sir Elton were married to a woman, she’d be Lady John, but as his civil partner, David Furnish gets nothing equivalent.

      4. Although generally speaking a man does not take a courtesy title by virtue of his wife having one. I would have thought it would be the same in the case of a male-male marriage.

        A lesbian married couple? Who knows. We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it, but it’s usual to take a lower title, so the wife of a Duchess would be a Marchioness?

        1. It’s not ‘generally speaking’, a man doesn’t take a courtesy title by virtue of his wife having one fullstop. (Tony Armstrong-Jones was offered a title of his own by the monarch, who is the only person who [ultimately] can grant such things, when he married, and took it; Mark Phillips was offered one, and didn’t.)

          And there are currently no duchesses (or marchionesses) in their own right in the UK, so your speculation is pointless. Even the husbands of Scottish women who can inherit titles in their own right gain no rank by marriage.

    3. Spanner1960 1 Jun 2012, 10:40pm

      Princess Bruno?

    4. The Countess of Wessex, presumably.

    5. Your title would I imagine be something along the lines of whatever Mrs Simpson achieved, she became Duchess of Windsor.
      So if you married a duke then perhaps you’d become a couple of dukes but then again you might be entitled to no title at all other than hubby.

      1. Not so Pavlos, since titles by marriage only apply to women, and titles for men can only be bestowed by the monarch. For example, Lord Alli’s spouse Charlie Parsons hasn’t become a lord by marriage.

  13. Has Peter Tatchell not got anything better to whine about? I can’t believe I’m even bothering to comment on this pointless waste of pixels

    1. Shake Spear 1 Jun 2012, 1:32pm

      Agreed. When does the queen give her opinion on ANYTHING?

      1. She has consistently made statements about people in the UK who are of different races, ethnicities and faiths.

        So yes, she bloody does talk about those subjects (given that faith isn’t even an innate characteristic)

  14. It could be thought that because the queen has to keep put of politics she shouldn’t mention gay people as support for them could indicate a political position, but if that is the case it is wrong and she should serve all of her people, not just some…

  15. I have a great respect for all Peter has done for our community but this article does him no favours, merely exposing his virulently republican sentiments by insulting the Queen. Attacking an 86 year old lady who has worked hard all her life in our interests is a real own goal. Those who don’t like living in a constitutional monarchy should move to a republic with a president – Zimbabwe or Syria maybe?

    1. I agree! And as Peter Tatchell is Australian don’t you think he should be working to force the Australian government to change it’s current equality laws?

      1. Tatchell has lived in this country for 41 of his 60 years. He’s about as Australian as Prince Philip is Greek (or Danish)!

      2. Actually her Majesty is the Queen of Australia as well so the comments could equally apply to Australia.

        If any one needs to take a lead on GLBT rights through the Commonwealth it is the Queen giving it was ‘her’ law that criminalized gay men through the Commonwealth – some of which that have never been abolished.

    2. I want to stay in Britain. And I want Britain to become a democracy with an elected head of state.

      It’s my country just as much as it is Mrs Windsor’s.

      It is an entirely acceptable and reasonable position to think Britain should be a republic – like the USA; France; Germany; Ireland Brazil etc.

      Monarchy is a grossly offensive and undemocratic system.

      1. Spanner1960 12 Jun 2012, 7:15pm

        I believe that’s what Lenin said just before the Soviets took over Russia.

    3. Rhoderick Gates 12 Jun 2012, 10:24am

      She doesn’t work.

  16. I think I may now be more interested in what the generations after the Queens think ie Wills and Henry, Kate, Charles and Camilla…

    Is she going to be Queen for that much longer anyway?

    1. inafter downvotes for honesty.

  17. I think if she actively had an issue with gays and so on, she would probably mention it in some roundabout way. As it is, her silence gives consent. It’s just that she doesn’t want to use the words. They would, I’m sure you’ll agree, sound weird coming out of her mouth.

    1. Shake Spear 1 Jun 2012, 1:34pm

      Also, it doesn’t matter how many people tell you they love you, if you still hate yourself, your problem is there in the mirror daily.

      That’s why we have expressions like: “straight-acting,” “straight-looking” and the wonderful “I’m not gay but I’ve always fancied sucking a c*ck.” Royalty can’t help you with self-rejection.

  18. She only repeats what the speechwriters write and is not generally allowed to express a point of view on anything.

  19. If I listed every low percentage minority group out there about which I had said nothing/had no interest, there would be a long list of obscure groups accusing me of bigotry, LGBT people have a larger public presence than.most other minority groups. It just means she does not partake in the frenzied obsession with the aims of this one particular demographic- maybe she doesnt watch TV or read the Guardian. There are people out there who dont feel any pressure to follow trends. I admire her for that.

    1. Exactly.

      There are only so many hours in the day for her to do stuff. She is also silent on one legged blind hamsters with alopecia but it doesn’t mean she doesn’t care about them either.

      1. Paddyswurds 1 Jun 2012, 10:40pm

        It’s well known that she watches the 6 o’clock news daily, and always alone. The Palace also gets a copy of every newspaper daily and she endeavors to read through each one. A list is usually made by a flunkie of articles she might be interested in each day, while she eats her brekkie from Tupperware containers and always with her Roberts radio on her table tuned to Radio 4.. She is extremely well informed on all aspects of world affairs and British life in particular. She rarely ever mentioned Ireland or the “troubles” but demonstrated that she was well informed when she made her excellently received trip here last year and actually asked to return soon.
        As for whether or not she is Gay friendly, I would say she deffo is, given the Gay makeup of the Royal households but is constrained by her position firstly as Queen and Secondly as Head of the CofE. There would be absolute uproar from the religious crazies were she to “come out” as Gay friendly..

  20. GingerlyColors 1 Jun 2012, 12:56pm

    The Queen does not speak on political and social issues as it goes against Royal Protocol.
    Anybody who watches Dr. David Starkey’s programmes about the Monarchy will learn that the history of the British Crown has been a turbulent one but the institution has enjoyed stability since 1690 – how many other countries have enjoyed political stability over 300 years?
    Personally, give me the Monarchy any day. For those who prefer a presidency, how about Zimbabwe?

    1. How about the USA; France; Germany?

      Saudi Arabia is a monarchy too you know.

      1. There are differences between absolute monarchies and constitutional monarchies…

      2. de Villiers 1 Jun 2012, 5:21pm

        Yes – one can have pride in being a Republic!

        1. I don’t mind the monarchy and I doubt I would be as fond of a President – however, my patriotism is not for Queen but for country.

          Whether my head of state is elected or a constitutional monarchy – that does not stop or hinder (or improve) my pride in being British and all that this means, including valuing, respecting and celebrating equality, shared values and decency.

      3. Paddyswurds 1 Jun 2012, 11:01pm

        …….None of which could possibly be called stable and definitely not since 1690 .
        The French revolution was 1788 til 1799 and then Napoleons shenanigans,
        Germany started and was involved in two world wars in the 20th century and betwixt the wars abolished their Monarchy,
        The USA was steeped in conflict until 1776, then the Spanish American war, The skirmishes with the French over Canada etc. and then the civil war from 1861 til 1865 when the country was riven in two over slavery.
        Saudi Arabia is a made up monarchy which only came into being in 1744 and has collapsed three times. So hardly competitors for stability such as that of the UK Royals.

    2. Countrygirl 1 Jun 2012, 5:00pm

      How about America, France or Eire? Why is it that monarchists who are trying to make republicans leave the country always pick on the worst example of a republic than can think of?

      1. Why is it that republicans always pick the worst form of monarchy to compare Britain to?

      2. Yes because of course George Bush, Nicholas Sarkozy, Christian Wulff, Richard Nixon, Berlusconi are all examples of wonderful national representatives. Even if you look at the Western countries, I’m sure if you had to choose between Mitt Romney or the Queen for your Head of State you might think twice about this.

        Sorry but the idea that election is ALWAYS the best method to find a representative is deeply flawed. It’s not. A huge advantage to monarchy is that members of the Royal Family are brought up to play the role they play in public life and the bubble they live in means they are very difficult to bribe or corrupt. Politicians are the opposite.

        There is a good reason why our monarchy is met with worldwide admiration and affection, you know!

        1. de Villiers 2 Jun 2012, 8:59am

          There was nothing wrong about Sarko. He was elected by popular vote as Hollande.

          1. Given a choice between Sarko and the Queen as head of state – the Queen, every single day of the week!

          2. Paddyswurds 2 Jun 2012, 3:28pm

            …The comparison is silly as the jobs they do aren’t in the slightest comparable. The Queen sits for a few minutes and reads the documents from the Red box and dutifully signs them. When was the last time you heard of her vetoing something, never; why? ’cause she hasn’t any powers.

            Sarky (I’m not a fan)Who was a working head of State, like, for instance Obama, literally ran his country, as will Hollande, with the help of the legislature, and had some very tough decisions to make. So all i all a non comparison situation……

          3. de Villiers 3 Jun 2012, 6:42pm

            You have not been given a choice. And in France, the choice was between Royal and Sarko – and Sarko won. The choice was then between Sarko and Hollande – and Hollande won.

            There was nothing wrong with the election of Sarko. THe argument that the UK would choose a shallow or minor person to be the President is not the experience of Europe. But still, the English seem to like the monarchy and it seems to work for the country.

        2. @Tom, I think your argument is really in favour of heads of state who aren’t executive but figureheads – and it’s quite a good one.

          And incidentally, Berlusconi was PM, not president of Italy (and who knows who that is?).

        3. Paddyswurds 3 Jun 2012, 11:14am

          When monarchs were executive leaders they didn’t do a good job, in fact they were despotic, so that’s why democracy was invented by the Greeks, not a little while back. Were Lizzie Windsor to be given executive powers she would probably also have made a haimes of it…..

  21. Well said Peter Tatchell (as usual). What a legend.

    1. Indeed.

      His article is very reasonable.

      Speaking out against the gross institution of monarchy is always reasonable.

      1. Spanner1960 1 Jun 2012, 10:39pm

        The article is utter and complete neo-Marxist SH|TE!
        The man is a lefty tosser, no wonder you support him.

        1. Paddyswurds 1 Jun 2012, 11:05pm

          And you are a right wing tosser so no difference then…

  22. I’m pretty sure there are hundreds of political groups who could step up and write similar articles based on what the Queen hasn’t said.

    1. I’m not a “political group”, I’m a person, one of millions, who is subject to her whether I want to be or not and whom she has never acknowledged in SIXTY bloody years (while wobbling on about other faiths, other nationalities etc etc etc etc etc etc).

      1. Exactly.

        Against my will I am the ‘subject’ of some old woman who has never been elected.

        Britain used to be an empire. It no longer is. So having a royal family is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money.

        A figurehead president (like exists in Germany) could replace the queen very easily.

        And it would also mean that our head of state is, you know, ELECTED!

        1. TheGreatSpaces 6 Jun 2012, 1:57pm

          Oh, but it’s not very much money; and it’s so fun to have a powerless toy monarchy to fuss over.
          Tearing down the monarchy would be like tearing down medieval churches just because ‘we’re no longer a theocracy’.
          When the detrimental parts of monarchy have been done away with already, trying to get rid of the royal family is just symbolism for symbolism’s sake. And what’s left of the monarchy seems to please the general public as much as any other government-sponsored cultural activity.

  23. I think you expect too much of the Queen (and probably of Charles III too) on this one. By convention, she does not speak out on controversial topics. She doesn’t talk about the economy, or tax avoidance, or immigration, or disability assessments, or the rights and wrongs of the HS2 railway either.

    In her capacity as head of the Church of England, with John Sentamu a serious candidate for the next Archbishop of Canterbury, it is unrealistic to pretend that this topic would not be controversial.

    I wish it were otherwise, but really you can’t dragoon her into saying something to please some people which is necessarily bound to upset others (however wrongheaded they are). Her job description requires neutrality.

    1. Britain’s head of state – Mrs Elizabeth Windsor – is also the head of the official state church – the homophobic church of England.

      I can’t see how any LGBT person could agree with the idea that there is no separation of church and state in this country.

      1. be quiet for a change!

      2. Spanner1960 1 Jun 2012, 8:56pm

        I second that. Shut the fck up!

      3. Supreme Governor…

    2. But by being silent, it is a tacit acknowledgement that homosexuality is automatically controversial.

      My homosexuality is no more controversial than the fact I have blue eyes.

      As for the church – fine, if she is to only be the monarch of people who are part of the CoE. They can have her. But that is only a very small part of the whole nation (and dying off year by year). If she is Queen, then she is Queen to everyone – Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, atheists and everyone else. It’s a null argument to say she cannot help it because of the church.

    3. I would hardly say Sentamu is likely to succeed Williams – he is too old…These days it is prefered that a bishop is under sixty for such consideration.

  24. I wanted to give the Queen a chance to put her side of the story, so I contacted her press office. I asked them whether the Queen has ever uttered in public the words Arsenal or Spurs? Did she use these words in any of her Queen’s speeches when announcing the government’s football and stadia laws? Has she ever acknowledged the existence of Spurs supporters in any public statement? Has the Queen ever visited White Hart Lane? Is she the patron of any organisation serving the needs of Tottenham Hotspur supporters?

    The Queen’s press office failed to respond. I rest my case. The monarchy is an Arsenal fan – if not by conscious intent, then by default.

    As head of state, the Queen is supposed to represent and embrace all football sides, not just the Gunners. How much longer will the Spurs community have to wait for royal recognition and acceptance?

    1. Idiotic false equivalence.

      1. Quite amusing actually. I also know which “team I play on” – so as a gay football fan, I found it a great comparison!

        1. Being a supporter of a football team is freely chosen, and voluntary (like religious belief).

          Unlike homosexuality.

          It’s a false comparison.

          1. OK then. Has she ever discussed people who suffer from tourettes? Or is she discriminatory against people with disabilities? Has she ever mentioned those who suffer from dwarfism(if that’s its name)? Neither are voluntary and both suffer due to the bigotry of others

          2. There is never any perfect comparison.

            It does expose the illogical aspect of Peters argument on this.

          3. Paddyswurds 1 Jun 2012, 11:08pm

            Apparently she is a Tottenham Hotspurs fan….

  25. Now I really must take issue with this. You cannot be bigoted by default, that’s essentially saying that you are guilty until proven innocent. When right wing commentators refer to ‘politically correct thought crime’ this is the sort of thing they are talking about.

    Normally I agree with you Peter, and on the whole I approve of your objective of equal rights for Homosexuals, but on this matter I’m afraid you really are miles off.

  26. Some of the logic is a bit iffy. If you search my blog, you probably won’t see the word ‘gay’, either. Nor, possibly, even ‘Sasha’…

    Still, it wouldn’t kill her to briefly acknowledge the community, I suppose.

  27. I agree. My mother is not anti-gay but the words don’t come naturally to her. It is a generational thing. Besides it is well known that many members of the Royal Family are very gay friendly with gay friends and employees. I think Peter has got it wrong on this one, but then he is a republican, unlike 80% of the rest of us.

    1. Tim Chapman 1 Jun 2012, 9:02pm

      Where do you get 80% from?

  28. TheRealSyfo 1 Jun 2012, 1:14pm

    The queens dont need the queen to approve them.Its people we are talking about and we arent trying score marks from ‘the queen’.
    Follow @TheRealSyfo

  29. Dan Bidewell 1 Jun 2012, 1:14pm

    Peter Tatchell, although a good man in many ways, has made a career out of gayness. For him it is an essential difference.
    It is a fundamental point of this difference that gay people exist as a separate unit from straight people and deserve recognition of that difference, if not special treatment. The Queen is of a different generation which sees sexuality as a private matter. It is that simple. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

    1. Kerry Hollowell 1 Jun 2012, 2:00pm

      Peter Tatchell hasn’t got a career! he is a giver and a doer and has progressed equal rights for all kinds of people at a huge cost to his health and made huge sacrifices.

      1. Many (including Peter, I would guess given that he is likely to have proof read the article I include below) view Mr Tatchell as having had a career (an ongoing one) in campaigning on various human rights issues:

        I think LGBT people and wider society have a great deal to thank Mr Tatchell for. He does make mistakes and errors of judgement – he is human – and I believe that this article about the Queen is one of his mistakes.

      2. Spanner1960 1 Jun 2012, 10:42pm

        I agree. He hasn’t got a career. He is just a whinging scumbag that ought to get a proper job instead of complaining about an 80yo+ woman that has worked her backside off all her adult life, and still continues to do so.

        1. Paddyswurds 1 Jun 2012, 11:15pm

          ……Really, a whinging scumbag? You sir, are an as*h0le, to say such a thing about a man who has worked tirelessly for GLBs all his life to the detriment of his own well being. What exactly have you done for anyone except spew vile bitter twisted bile that smacks of jealousy?. When you have walked a mile in his shoes then perhaps you can comment but until that unlikely event STFU……!!!

          1. I certainly do not agree that PT is a whinging scumbag!

            I do agree his conclusions in this article are wrong, the timing of this article is wrong and he lacks evidence to support his conclusions.

            However, PT is only human – not omnipotent. He has raised a great deal of human rights issues of tremendous value (LGBT and otherwise) and had an active role in changing many government and international policies on many issues which have benefitted many people globally. He deserves appreciation.

            He also deserves to be held to account when he is wrong. He is wrong in this article.

    2. And the ‘queen’ has made a career out of being born into a ‘roya’ family , despite no other qualifications for being the head of state.

      1. As for ‘god save the queen’ – well there’s no such thing as ‘god’ and no-one has a birthright to be head of state.

        So screw that.

        1. Spanner1960 2 Jun 2012, 1:02pm

          And fck you.

  30. Frankly, I think this says far more about Mr Tatchell’s (well known) feelings on the Monarchy than anything it says about gay rights.

    It is true that the Queen frequently mentions different faiths, and different ethnic groups etc. So it can be said that it does stand out that she has never publically mentioned LGBT people. This is not evidence of homophobia. It is sufficient to raise questions perhaps – it is not evidence.

    1. When 9 out of 14 countries where Elizabeth II is Queen still consider homosexuality to be a criminal act. Queen Elizabeth could make a huge difference by speaking up for equal gay rights, it is quite shocking that she does not.

      1. It would be quite shocking for the Queen to speak out on an issue of law and order.

        It is a fact that the Queen constitutionally must remain publically silent on issues of politics – law is a political issue.

        Whilst making homosexuality illegal in some of the countries within her realm is clearly a matter of human rights; it is (by virtue of the illegality, also a matter of jurisprudence).

        There are ways that the Queen can influence issues such as human rights issues without making public statements or comments and causing constitutional difficulty by being seen to enter the political arena. She does this quietly and sensitively. Perhaps more could be done on LGBT issues.

        However, suggesting that the Queen supports criminalisation of homosexuality because 9 nations where she is titular head of state have such a legal viewpoint is simplistic. If she strongly believed in condmening homosexuality then she would neither employ gay staff, would have refused to countenance the

        1. decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK or elsewhere and refused to support the law being repealed (which she is constitutionally entitled to do – albeit has never done).

          The Queen has made no comment verbally on issues of sexuality. To then take an absence of information on an issue as meaning having an opinion is stretching credibility beyond what is reasonable or legitimate.

          1. Are you writing this in some professional capacity Sara?

        2. You do seem to have a special interest in this, do you work in some form of PR capacity for the Royals?

          1. I think a Palace spokesperson would have written that somewhat differently!

          2. Well Sara has only replied to my posts and nobody else from what I can see and I’m wondering what drew her specific attention to my comment, there seems to be a higher motivation beyond personal interest. I’m wondering if she is with the Royals press office.

  31. So it’s not what someone says but what they don’t say that counts ?

  32. Her Majesty is silent on all sorts of issues – that’s the point of a constitutional monarch who’s role is primarily that of a figurehead.

    To the best of my knowledge, she hasn’t said much about golf. Should I take that as evidence that she is not amused by my fumbling attempts to participate in the sport?

  33. Peter Tatchell needs to make his mind up about the Queen – either go for the abolition of the monarchy, in which case it doesn’t matter what she says or does, or sidle up to the old duck and try to get her to say something nice about us.

    1. Agreed.

      He should simply have pointed out the inherently undemocratic nature of monarchy.

      1. Shake Spear 1 Jun 2012, 4:34pm

        If it had been left to ‘democracy’, we’d have no rights at all. Unless you expand and contract its definition as and when it suits YOU.

        1. Not being allowed to elect our head of state, and forcing our elected MP’s to pledge allegiance to the unelected head of state is not democratic.

  34. Generally I am a Peter Tatchell fanboy. I like his no-nonsense attitude on human rights and have no issue doing a small annual donation to his foundation.

    However on this article I couldn’t be more opposed to his line of reasoning.

    The Queen, I’m sure, hasn’t ever mentioned allsorts of issues, causes and political movements. There are thousands of charities in this country she is not a patron of. Her lack of discussion or active support does not make a statement about her feelings on their work, and it doesn’t make a statement in this case.

    I do not expect Her Majesty to comment on matters that could be at odds with her position as head of the Church of England. Nor do I expect her to support every single minority group in the country. I expect her only to do her job as head of state of this country, a function she performs admirably and one for which this weekend we should duly give her credit.

    As an atheist God Save the Queen isn’t appropriate but you get my gist.

    1. Being gay is not an issue, a cause, a political movement or a charity so I don’t buy that argument.

      Either she chooses not to mention the pink elephant in the room or she is stopped from doing so by her myriad advisers/speechwriters. Whichever it is, it’s odd and worthy of comment. Shame, then, that Tatchell’s has made such a pig’s ear of this particular argument.

      1. Whether she chooses not to mention homosexuality or whether she is prevented from doing so by advisors etc does not mean that she is homophobic – it merely means she has not mentioned homosexuality.

  35. Do we actually really know the Queen’s opinions on any topic?

  36. In theory, the vast majority of the UK population is heterosexual, or at least leads a heterosexual lifestyle. I don’t think I’ve heard her mention straight people at all.

    According to Tatchell’s absurd logic, she must therefore be heterophobic.

    1. It might have escaped your notice, as a bloody apologist, but the whole world is heteronormative. You might as well be blathering on about why people don’t have “straight pride days” when the nature of heteronormative society is that EVERY day is straight pride day and everything defaults to heterosexuals.

      1. Spanner1960 12 Jun 2012, 7:19pm

        You make it sound like it’s something wrong.
        Whatever you say abouyt LGBT people, we *are* normal, but we are not ‘the norm.” That’s just the way it is, get over it.

    2. Possibly the stupidest comment on the article thus far… congratulations.

  37. In my opinion, it’s not so much the Queen’s silence on homosexuality that’s worrying; but the overt, explicit and, frankly, disgusting homophobia displayed by ordinary people!

    1. Because there is still a degree of social acceptance for being homophobic. She has the power to make a MAJOR difference in correcting that. She never has.

  38. Kerry Hollowell 1 Jun 2012, 1:57pm

    Obama has done wonders by stating that he is personally in favour of gay marriage. The queen should say something and acknowledge the LGBT community, we pay taxes and play vital and important roles in the British society, she welcomes and identifies with all other communities why not ours?
    By saying nothing she is saying much! She doesn’t care and doesn’t value us.

    1. What happened to presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

      In this case you are judging someone by what they havent said and so assuming that this means something for which you have no evidence!

    2. Barack Obama and the Queen are similar in that they are both Heads of State. However they are different in that Barack Obama is a politician, the Queen is not. The Queen never voices her personal views on anything, and the views she does comment on are primarily limited to those which would not be seen as being controversial. If she did make a controversial comment then the monarchy would have a crisis on their hands.

      1. But her silence reinforces the notion that homosexuality is somehow “controversial” when it is not, it is just a fact of life.

        1. Thats your perception of her silence.

          Her silence could be viewed in many different ways.

          Making presumptions on what that silence means is not based in evidence.

          I am silent about the issue of democratic affairs in the Maldives. I do have an opinion. Now do you presume that means I am supportive of the current regime, or against the current regime? It is actually one of those options – but for you to determine which it is requires you to have evidence. If you say my silence means one or the other without evidence – you are guessing. In the same way the Queens (so called) silence on LGBT issues does not evidence her view either way – and it is illogical to suggest that it does.

  39. You have no idea what she thinks. Do you just make that assumption about all old dears?

    Maybe there is something interesting to say about Her Maj and inclusiveness if we look at it from the angle of her role as Defender of the Faith. I can see it being incompatible to head up a church in modern day Britain which actually discriminates against some of the monarch’s subjects. This article isn’t about that – it’s about damning the old girl for something she hasn’t said.

    I would say I lean towards being a Republican but I guess I am just utterly indifferent to the lot of them.

    You know, there are more important things in the world to get worked up about than this (and I guess that makes me a big old hypocrite for even bothering to post a message).

  40. The Queen has had little to say about left handed people as well.

    Should I be offended?

    I have a lot of respect for you Mr Tatchell but your argument sounds like something that Rick out of the Young Ones would have used.

    1. Good grief. Is everyone bloody insane in here today?

      When did you last face aggression, bigotry, hatred, discrimination, verbal abuse, abandonment by your own bloody family and so on because you are left bloody handed?

      1. So your diagnosis of sanity is based on whether someone agrees with you or not?

        That sounds, at best, extremely arrogant – at worst delusional.

        1. No. I am wondering how bloody facile and ignorant someone has to be to think that the situation for left handed people is any any way analogous to the lives of LGBT people.

          1. About as facile and ignorant as someone who believes that not saying something is evidence of opposing it.

      2. de Villiers 2 Jun 2012, 9:04am

        It is a bit vain.

  41. Kerry Hollowell 1 Jun 2012, 2:02pm

    Where does old queenie liz mark 2 stand on gay marriage?
    why hasn’t she followed Obama’s lead and personally endorsed it?
    all the royals have personal feelings and they aren’t afraid to show it in other areas!

    1. Dan Bidewell 1 Jun 2012, 2:50pm

      He was elected for his opinions. She was not. That is the big difference.

      1. So you mean that the USA is a democracy, and the UK is not?

        If so then agreed.

  42. Quote: “Whereas most of us now welcome and embrace lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people”

    Uhmm untrue. Homophobes are still a majority unfortunately.

    And as for the queen not supporting gay rights, who can say that they’re surprised about this? Furthermore she has no power and non of the british citizens should care what she thinks. She’s just a public figure and nothing more. Don’t let the word ‘queen’ misguide you.

  43. The queen always talks about anything in the most hyperneutral manner, hence it can seem like she doesn’t have particular opinions on anything. Also, the queen is not Obama, she has a far lesser role in governing the country, and is supposed to be largely a symbol.

    It is, however, acceptable to bash the queen nowadays so why not write an article? Funny that Muslim homophobia – for example – is only dealt with in a generic, diluted and “walk on eggshells” fashion, so I call “double standards” on articles like this.

  44. Those of us who grew up in a society where homosexuality was never mentioned by anyone with power and influence, giving a free hand to others to spread lies and disinformation about it, are well aware of the destructive effects of this silence.

    If the Queen herself is still unable to address the issue in the more enlightened times which we have seen in the last few years, then she should at least give free reign to the younger members of her household to provide the still much-needed heads-up to LGBT people, acknowledging our status as fully valid members of society.

    If William or Harry, for example, could be seen opening a refuge for young gay people thrown out of their parental homes because of their sexual orientation, this would do untold good.

    I think Peter Tatchell’s observations on the monarchy’s complete silence are extremely important.

  45. Kudos to the Queen for blanking the militant gay lobby and not contaminating the Royalty!

    1. You put words into Her Majesty’s mouth just as much as Peter Tatchell attempts to (albeit by omission). You, sir, insult her by doing so.

      I suspect you couldn’t give a damn about the monarchy but only your weird obsession. Keep Her Majesty out of it.

    2. “Kudos to the Queen for blanking the militant gay lobby and not contaminating the Royalty!”

      When Equal Marriage rights come in, as they are very soon, we’ll see who’s wishing kudos, won’t we Ken? Do visit this site then, I’d love a good laugh at your histrionics! LOL.

    3. *Cough* Bisexual war hero uncle *cough*.

  46. It’s absolutely right for Peter Tatchell to highlight this – 60 years without a mention? Shocking.

    It’s not just about the Queen’s personal feelings (which of course we cannot know) but the deliberate avoidance of words like lesbian and gay even from speeches relating to law reform specifically relating to LGBT people. It’s shocking that in 2012 we are still “unspeakable”. Diana was pretty much the only royal who ever showed (limited, but highly appreciated) support for gay people, generally in the context of HIV/AIDS. It’s now almost 15 years since her death …

  47. I am a die-hard Republican (for many reasons not really to do with lgbt rights). It has to be said that the modern monarchy, at least in public, has generally veered towards the conservative end of the social consensus. In the early part of the Queen’s reign she would not even receive divorced people. This began with Albert and Victoria’s idealisation of the bourgeois family (itself a reflection of social developments). The inclination to conservatism is now driven, I think, by two principal factors. Enthusiastic supporters of the Monarchy are generally more socially conservative than others and protest loudly if it departs too noticeably from their expectations; and the Sovereign is the Supreme Head of a Church not noted for sane approaches to sexual diversity (one of many reasons for Disestablishment). But doors often don’t open unless one knocks at them; perhaps it is time for more invitations to HM to open lgbt community centres and Pride fetes?

    1. Not forgetting how she refused to allow her sister marry the man she wanted to.

      1. I believe in point of fact her sister would have been allowed to marry the divorced man she wanted to marry if she’d have been prepared to renounce her rights of succession, which she wasn’t.

  48. Some really vicious (and revealing) responses on the Guardian website, none of them actually attacking the substance of the article.

  49. Perhaps Peter Thatchell might have done well too remember that she is also the Head of the Anglican Communion. Her public position has to reflect that of the church whether she likes it or not.
    And also, perhaps he would do well to remember that most of her political speeches are written not by her but by her ministers. Blame them. Yet again, Peter misses the point.

    1. The fact that the Cult of England is the official state church is also grossly offensive.

      Monarchy as an institution is rotten to the core.

      1. You are the one that is rotten to the core!

        1. For believing that British people should be allowed to elect our head of state, and for believing in the complete separation of church and state?

          OK then, I am rotten to the core.

          1. I believe there is more separation of church and state here than there is in America no?

            Which you say above i democratic than the UK (which I don’t particularly agree with).

            She is a figurehead and makes no decisions.

            I don’t mind if you are against the monarchy but don’t start pretending she has the powers of a president or anything.

            The unelected house of lords is much more undemocratic than having a figurehead monarch.

  50. I agree with D. Mc Cabe’s comments. I think that much of the Queens silence is her generations dislike of discussing “sex” in public forums.

    I hope that is all it is, anyway!


    1. Saying the word “lesbian” is NOT discussing sex. Good grief. If I never had sex again, I would still be a bloody lesbian!

      1. de Villiers 2 Jun 2012, 9:06am

        Or even a lesbian.

      2. Spanner1960 2 Jun 2012, 11:33am

        The word “lesbian” defines one’s sexuality, implicitly, if not explicitly.

        1. It doesnt mean you have sex though!

          You can be orientated in terms of attraction and for a plethora of reasons not have sex, your orientation remains the same.

  51. I believe that once Mrs Elizabeth Windsor dies, then the monarchy should be abolished, and Britain should become a democracy, where the head of state is, you know ELECTED.

    And remember that if you are elected as an MP, you are REQUIRED to pledge allegiance to the unelected Queen.

    So effectively the 33% of the population who is republican, is not allowed to participate in our poltical system, as a refusal to pledge allegiance to Mrs Windsor precludes you from our political system.

    1. de Villiers 1 Jun 2012, 5:23pm

      Although I could see a proud First Republic of Britain, should this decision be made by the people in a referendum?

      If the majority made their votes for the monarchie, then surely it would have to remain?

      1. Perhaps.

        But the monarchy would still need to be MASSIVELY reformed.

        Firstly as head of state the monarch should not also be the head of the church of England. Separation of church and state is essential.

        Secondly – no-one in Britain should be ‘subject’ to the queen. We should be citizens, not subjects (the EU has helped here, but there’s still more to do).

        The House of Lords could remain but all Lords would need to be elected for fixed terms of 5 years, like in other bicameral democracies like the USA.

        No-one should be required to pledge allegiance to the monarch, and openly republican politicians should be fully permitted to partake in parliament.

        ALL the royal family (except the monarch) should be required to hold down actual jobs.

        Aside from her privately owned Balmoral castle, the queen should only have 1 official residence – Buckingham Palace. All the rest of her official palaces – Clarence House; Windsor Castle, Sandringham etc should be turned into museum

    2. Spanner1960 1 Jun 2012, 10:32pm

      Yeah. And the other 66% are. That’s democracy in my book, so go complain someplace else. Wanker.

      1. I am a republican citizen of our undemocratic country. I’ll complain here.

        Royalty is undemocratic, unnecessary, wasteful, offensive and ridiculous.

        Get rid of it.

        1. So which of the following potential Presidents would you have found a better alternative to the Queen:

          President Blair
          President Brown
          President Milliband
          President Hague
          President Duncan-Smith
          President Howard
          President Cameron
          President Osborne
          President Clegg
          President Cable
          President Ashdown
          President Kennedy
          President Salmond
          President Harman

          any alternative that would be better?

          I prefer the Queen to any of the alternatives!

        2. de Villiers 3 Jun 2012, 6:46pm

          THe monarchy is undemocratic in terms of who is chosen to be the monarch but the system itself seems to have democratic support and legitimacy. For the castles, the President of France has the use of a number of different castles and residences – it is not a feature unique of the monarchie. For being ‘subjects’, not only does the passeport of my partner state him to be a “British citizen” but also you are all Citizens of the Union European.

          Still, you could elect the Prime Minister and have him as your head of state?

  52. Considering that the Queen’s mother was well known for having close friendships with gay people, this is a bit surprising. Thanks for the article.

  53. I fully support Her Majesty, and will be celebrating the Diamond Jubilee! Peter Tatchell is a staunch republican and bashes the Queen, every minute he can! So it isn’t really suprising! I am disappointed at how much Pink News uses Tatchell for writing opinion pieces on this site! Peter lost my support a long time ago, and has lost the support of many other gay people i know. I could be here for ages giving the reasons why, but i am sure you can work some of them out for themselves!

    1. He hasn’t lost my support.

      While I understand for many this may be a painful message that Peter Tatchell is raising – I nevertheless think it is a valid one.

      Much easier to try and shot the messenger when one doesn’t want to consider the message.

      1. Personally the issue is worth raising but he jumps to conclusions which are neither grounded in fact or evidence and are illogical.

  54. I wanted to disagree with this article and was skeptical of its necessity but Peter Thatchell, a man of great personal integrity, does make one telling point even if he rather over-eggs the piece.
    While not for one second do I think that the Queen is homophobic (the 1995 reference is going a bit far back), I do think the fact that she has never once visited an LGBT charity is a serious omission — and one easily rectified, which I hope it will be.

  55. You have to remember, as gay rights is considered a political issue, constitutionally, the Queen is not allowed to show support for for against it, and she employees personal staff that are LGBT, so she can’t really be homophobic. Plus her own mother was notorious for hiring homosexuals, and when the government asked her not to she flat out refused to stop, and even had gay men escort her to events, which in her role she could publicly do those things, she was not bound by the law. Learn the truth before you go on an attack.

    1. Yes! The Queen Mum was gay-heavenly! I had a fling with one of her butlers. I eventually got invited to tea at Clarence House. My then-bf introduced me and we sat down, she picked up her telephone and said (presumably about the duty butler) ‘Can you tell that old queen down there that this old queen up here is ready for tea’! Apparently this was a common routine! She just adored gay men.

      1. Yes, of course the Queen Mother would have invited her servants’ flings to tea. I’m sure many people believe you.

  56. I’m not at all surprised. The queen grew up in an entirely different era and her attitudes were shaped by that. No doubt that she is homophobic but she’s an old fart. I’m sure that Prince Harry or Prince William have an entirely different point of view.

  57. Bud Clark 1 Jun 2012, 3:30pm

    That certainly didn’t stop the late Queen Mother, who famously said to her staff,

    “Will one of you queens bring this old Queen a drink?”

    And it has been said for many years that the Royal staff was a refugium for gay men, though they weren’t allowed to be “out of the closet.”

    That was and is certainly wrong, but OTOH the Queen has tried to protect the Monarchy from “scandal” … not that she has SUCCEEDED (chuckle).

  58. Peter Tatchell yet again trying to fashion gay people as weapons to be outraged and protest against something that he doesn’t like. What a desperate pathetic argument he has created. I think he is the most homophobic person in the UK; stirring pointless arguments like this are a way of demonising gay people into thinking that even the monarchy hates them as well as the rest of the world. In the mean time gay people are being executed and burnt alive in some countries, beaten to death and beheaded daily.

  59. Bud Clark 1 Jun 2012, 3:34pm

    The Queen is NOT head of the Anglican Communion; she is “Supreme Governour” of the Church of England.

    NOBODY is the “head” of the Anglican Communion, which is made up of 37 (I believe it is) AUTOCEPHALOUS (independent) Provinces.

    Try as they might, the homophobic heretical and schismatic bishops of the “global south” have not succeeded in making the office of Archbishop of Canterbury into a kind of “Anglican pope.”

    1. What would Jesus say about your insults!

  60. Just how many Queens have you guys got?

  61. theGentleWarrior 1 Jun 2012, 3:51pm

    Queen Elizabeth support anti-gay church faction

  62. Peter is a genuine hero, and I despise the queen and all she stands for, but I don’t really see the point in this piece. Old lady not very enthusiastic about general gayness? What did you expect?

  63. Diana met men with AIDS and removed the Murdoch myth that its airborne or can be caught by a handshake. She was disrespected in her death after doing so much. Draw your own conclusions

  64. What a shame that Mr. Tatchell is not able to see life outside his own very narrow world view. To be honest ‘get a life’. In this time of celebration to carp on like this is a sure sign of losing the debate and losing any sense of the right time to speak. Whilst to Mr. T. the only issue is so called gay rights for the monarchy relfects issues of a more national and international importance and actually she does lots behind the scenes that goes un-noticed a way of oding things that Mr. T. seems unable to grasp.

  65. Peter Tatchell’s condescending attitudes make it seem as if all gay people share his views. Tatchell does not speak on behalf of many gay people in this country who want to just get on with life, be treated equally in society, but at the same time don’t require some card carrying leftie pontificating at them.

    No one denies that Peter has been part of some brilliant campaigns, but the way he takes every slight utterance or omission, such as this one, so seriously is annoying.

    1. I don’t believe Peter Tatchell for one minute is suggesting that he speaks for all the GLBT community. He is an activist and what activists do is raise issues that are more often than not inconvienant truths .

      What I am dissapointed not to read is Brits taking responsibility for the disastrous effects British colonization across the world has had and in particular on GLBT people. In many African and Asian countries old British laws that criminalize GLBT people remain causing oppression and hardship. In my view the Queen needs to take some responsibility for this and show some leadership in talking out. It is time she evolved.

  66. Speaking as a Republican, Peter, I think you’re just having a laugh.

    She says what she’s told to say by the government.

  67. Where I disagree with Tatchell (in this instance) is that I believe not discussing sexuality is a product of the Queen’s background and lack of personal freedom rather than homophobia (which I do agree with combatting). The Queen is a product of a time and a class where generally ladies didn’t publibly discuss such matters. Although technically head of state, she’s a figurehead, with a role that involves diplomatic interactions with foreign dignitaries and supporting the current elected government. If she attempted to lead the way politically, there would be outcry about too much power in the hands of an unelected leader.

    1. What I am dissapointed not to read is Brits taking responsibility for the disastrous effects British colonization across the world has had and in particular on GLBT people. In many African and Asian countries old British laws that criminalize GLBT people remain causing oppression and hardship. In my view the Queen needs to take some responsibility for this and show some leadership in talking out. It is time she evolved.

  68. Concerning the queen and any social issue: The notion that she’s any sort of political or moral auditor is so regressive that I can only assume Pete T. is also having a laugh. Come on, Pete, you’re taking the mick.

    Next, shall we have organised labour appealing to the queen for improved pay and conditions?
    Or possibly, the queen speaking up for … best not mention examples – it only causes argument.

  69. “The monarchy is homophobic – if not by conscious intent, then by default.”

    Now I really must take issue with this. You cannot be bigoted by default, that’s essentially saying that you are guilty until proven innocent. When right wing commentators refer to ‘politically correct thought crime’ this is the sort of thing they are talking about.

    Normally I agree with you Peter, and on the whole I approve of your objective of equal rights for Homosexuals, but on this matter I’m afraid you really are miles off.

  70. Normally I agree with Peter Tatchell, but for once I find myself I vehement disagreement. The article is poorly written, makes stupendous leaps of logic (apaarently never mentioning something, in either a positive or negative manner, is now meant to mean you oppose it. Okayyyyyy) and is extremely poorly timed. Coming as it does says before the jubilee, all it does it make Tatchell and by extension the entire GLBT community look shallow and bitter. Congratulations Peter, you’ve just demonstrated how to undo 4 decades of hard work in less than 10 minutes.

    1. “Undo 4 decades of hard work”? Aren’t you getting a little carried away?

      1. Tatchell began campaigning in 1967, which I believe you will find was 45 years ago. So actually, “four decades” was erroneous – it’s four AND A HALF decades. My point is that I have generally regarded him with a lot of respect. He has stood up when no one else would. But this. This was pathetic. He has tarnished everything he has ever done, in my eyes. And not just by his ill-informed opinions but his atrocious timing, which just makes this seem like a crude and cynical marketing ploy, an attempt to grab five more minutes of fame.

    2. Shake Spear 1 Jun 2012, 4:31pm

      Peter Tatchell IS shallow and bitter. You only have to look at his constant brown-nosing to Islam to see that.

      1. ‘Constant brown-nosing to Isam’, really? For example?

        1. ‘Islam’, even.

  71. I have huge respect for the Queen and I am sure she respects subjects, regardless of race or sexual orientation. This article is just republican propaganda. Peter Thatchell tries to discredit anyone who has any connection to organised religion.

    1. Professor Eric Anderson 1 Jun 2012, 4:32pm

      So many of those posting on this thread think that even mentioning the words ‘gay or lesbian’ is in-and-of-itself a political act.

      1. I’m afraid that, even nowadays, in many contexts that is precisely what it still is.

    2. Ashley: “I am sure she respects subjects, ”

      How can you respect someone who is subject to you? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

      1. Not really. People can respect their PAs, employers can respect their employees. I think the Queen is aware she’s not a medieval autocrat.

  72. de Villiers 1 Jun 2012, 5:10pm

    I am a republican and certainly not a royalist, however, I think the article is uncharitable.

    It is not really an authoritative source, but I remember watching a BBC television emission about the Queen Mother, whose personal staff were nearly all gay – and her comment when the police were busy arresting gay people for importuning that if they continued this for much longer, the monarchie would have to go self-service!

    1. Yes, it was Conservative MP who advised her homosexuals should all be locked up, to which she made that remark.

      I like much more her, supposed, warning to Noel Coward as he eyed up some soldiers on guard for her. “We count them when we put them to bed”. ;)

    2. Yes, but that’s more the fear that reliable staff would be hard to replace: while in some respects benevolent it shouldn’t be mistaken for looking favourably on gay people or homosexuality. The proof of the pudding would be the way a gay member of the royal family itself would be treated, and I think we all know the answer to that — “get married, quickly!”

      (BTW, ‘transmission’ rather than ’emission’, which suggests something altogether different in English!)

  73. de Villiers 1 Jun 2012, 5:27pm

    I should also add that even as a Republican, I am looking forward to the big Jubilee party to which I have been invited. It all seems like a good time for some harmless fun.

    It is sympathetic to see some celebration of English culture.

    1. de Villiers 1 Jun 2012, 5:27pm

      I think sympathetic means something different in English – I mean that it is nice to see some celebration of English culture.

      1. There are a number of difference meaning that could be taken from sympathetic but I took it as being seeking to enjoy something cultural, sharing in the event and identify with the patriotism (even if perhaps not sharing in the reason).

    2. de Villiers

      You are the sort of republican that I aspire to be. Someone who enjoys the fun of monarchy (whilst not believing in it) and who can try and look at the issue of constitutional monarchy with a balanced and even mind.

      Instinctively I am republican. However, I do like the Queen and I struggle to think of any elected individual that I would rather have as my head of state than her!

  74. Pooo should not contact penis.. 1 Jun 2012, 5:51pm

    The queen never ushers the word heterosexuals either but you don’t hear the heteros whinging about it. To my knowledge she has never mentioned the s’ca’t community or the incestuous either.
    As far as I am aware, ones sexual preferences are none of her business and it is disingenuous to label an institution as homophobic by default if it never mentions homosexuals. An institution cannot be homophobic as homophobia is a mental condition, when correctly defined, as is any phobia.
    Go on with your false labelling Mr Tatchell. You sound bitter.

    1. Ben Foster 1 Jun 2012, 6:18pm

      You’re confused, Keithie, dear. The queen isn’t an insitution. That’s where you LIVE,

      1. turd burglars kiddy fiddlers club 1 Jun 2012, 8:55pm

        Tatchell said the MONARCHY is a homophobic institution. Read the article properly before commentating please.

      2. Ben we are hoping that you will join us in a united policy of ignoring the trolls no matter what they post here. We think they have had a good run for their money but now it’s time to simply ignore them and not make any reply to anything they post. Hope you will agree.

        1. Ben Foster 2 Jun 2012, 1:12am

          well, the silly ones like Keith and Inspector-Dimwit, granted. But I think the likes of Lumi Bast need to be challenged on the hurtful transphobia.

    2. Inspector Keith 1 Jun 2012, 6:26pm

      “ones” ? You mean “one’s”.

      “queen” ? You mean “Queen”.

      “ushers” ? You mean “utters”

      And yet you use rarer words like “disingenuous” correctly. You’ve made a basic mistake you know, old chap.

  75. Ben Foster 1 Jun 2012, 6:16pm

    WHAT exactly are you inspector general of? Is this a sort of trustee position in the lunatic asylum for long-term patients or something?

  76. Inspector General

    When you say “Probably a few Paedo’s around too, you know what Gay men are like”, are you genuinely trying to commit an act of gross slander against an entire community? If not, where is your evidence to link paedophilia to being homosexual? – Oh there is none.

    How am I? Very well thank you. 100% fighting fit.

    If you would be so kind to supply me with contact details – when the law is changed (thats a WHEN not IF) – perhaps I could invite you to the marriage of my boyfriend and myself – and the blessing by our local church. (Should I look for smelling salts now, old chap, or are you made of sterner stuff and able to engage with equality?).

    Now, correct me if I am wrong, Inspector but I believe I read that you also frequent Archbishop Cranmers site? If so, perhaps thats why you expect to find child abusers on the t’internet – after all Cranmers blog must attract a certain ‘clientelle’ shall we say. He does have a rather “catholic” approach to things. We

    1. all know what these Catholics are like – bells, smells, cross dressing, child abuse – it seems almost traditional and doctrinal for a Catholic. Something you also partake in? Perhaps thats why you expect to find it?

      1. Mark – probably best not to reply to the “Inspector General’s” posts. He is a troll, and thrives on confirmation of the impact of his posts. Just let what he writes be there, if you can. His unconscionable posts are more likely to win sympathy for the LGBT cause from people previously indifferent or mildly opposed, than the reverse. Many people don’t know what some homophobic “Christians” are capable of.

        None of us knows what kind of abuse, evil and suffering he has been subjected to, to make him the kind of person he is today. If we had had his parents, his genes and his life experience, we might well be behaving the same way. Not a nice thought, but possibly an accurate one.

        1. Thanks, Gazza

          I agree we should just flag down and ignore sanctimonious idiotic theocratic snails like the Inspector.

      2. de Villiers 2 Jun 2012, 9:11am

        So you respond to this comment by insulting Catholics?

  77. A thoughtful piece by Peter Tatchell, and he makes some valid points.

    I would imagine that a large part of the problem relates to the Queen’s generation, hundreds of years of tradition, and the social conservatism of her advisers.

    Things are likely to change, I would have thought, when Charles becomes King, and even more so when William accedes.

    The monarchy will not survive if it falls too far out of touch with modern society.

    It would be interesting to see what would happen if a member of the royal family were to “come out” as gay: especially if s/he were an heir to the throne. I would imagine there would be colossal pressue for them to remain in the closet and enter a marriage of convenience. The Royal Family seem to be constrained to act in a way that can violate their civil liberties and personal needs. It would be good to have a modern Royal Family whose right to privacy and individual freedom was properly honoured.

    Rome wasn’t built in a day, I suppose.

    1. He does raise some valid points, however its jumping a huge leap to suppose that not having publically commented on homosexuality means that someone is homophobic.

    2. Who said the world revolves around any particular person or gay people in general?

      Is that more you feeling threatened because society is beginning to recognise that bigotry is unacceptable?

      Your days of cruel and vindictive cruelty (which God frowns upon) are over and will not return.

      1. Brian – probably best not to reply to the “Inspector General’s” posts. He is a troll, and thrives on confirmation of the impact of his posts. Just let what he writes be there, if you can. His unconscionable posts are more likely to win sympathy for the LGBT cause from people previously indifferent or mildly opposed, than the reverse. Many people don’t know what some homophobic “Christians” are capable of.

        None of us knows what kind of abuse, evil and suffering he has been subjected to, to make him the kind of person he is today. If we had had his parents, his genes and his life experience, we might well be behaving the same way. Not a nice thought, but possibly an accurate one.

    3. Someone touched a raw nerve, Inspector

      … or are you just feeling a little touched?

  78. Didnt/ dont the royals have a trans doctor?

    The Queen doesn’t tend to talk on the record about anything. Her visits and speeches aren’t her decisions. If there’s an issue I’m not sure its with her in particular.

  79. One notices that the Inspector tries to appear affable and amiable but likes an undercurrent of cruel and vindictiveness. One notices that the Inspector is never one to let truth, fact and evidence get in the way of theocratic rhetoric.

    Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because “he often finds adults of either sex repulsive” and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may “regress” to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships

    1. The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

      So the so called homosexual Catholic priests are highly unlikely to be homosexual (although some may be) – but are Catholic, which seems to be something the Inspector has leanings towards, perhaps not his only leaning?

      1. turd burglars kiddy fiddlers club 1 Jun 2012, 9:03pm

        If they are molesting same sex hen they are either homosexual or bisexual paedophiles idiot. Because the targets are young does not neutralize the persons prientation. Everyone has a sexual orientation, including paedos. Paedos that molest same sex kids are certainly not heterosexual paedos are they. They must be one of the other two then.

      2. The scientific evidence suggests orientation is not a factor in abuse of children – its about power. Predominantly those abusing children are usually in heterosexual relationships when not abusing children. The rhetoric that paedophiles who are abusing boys are gay is bogus.

        If you can not see beyond that – then frankly you are the idiot and the one with brains as useful as porridge.

  80. Myself and my boyfriend (in our CP – which will be a marriage very soon!) have children.

    No duds here.

    Maybe the Inspector requires assistance (given one assumes his advancing years given his antiquated views!)

    1. Harvey – probably best not to reply to the “Inspector General’s” posts. He is a troll, and thrives on confirmation of the impact of his posts. Just let what he writes be there, if you can. His unconscionable posts are more likely to win sympathy for the LGBT cause from people previously indifferent or mildly opposed, than the reverse. Many people don’t know what some homophobic “Christians” are capable of.

      None of us knows what kind of abuse, evil and suffering he has been subjected to, to make him the kind of person he is today. If we had had his parents, his genes and his life experience, we might well be behaving the same way. Not a nice thought, but possibly an accurate one.

  81. HM did refer to ‘same-sex’ partnerships in the Queen’s Speech, in November 2003. Also, I live in Oxford and know that Oxford Friend was awarded the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service in 2006, the first LGBT voluntary organisation to receive the award. That was a very progressive move. Not quite comparable, but the Queen is well known to be a fan of Elton John and even let him play in the Music Room at Buckingham Palace. There are also a lot of LGBT staff in all the royal household. I worked for them for a while and know this to be true. I don’t think the monarchy is homophobic at all, just a bit old-fashioned. There is room for improvement – perhaps the royal household could become a Stonewall Diversity Champion? It would also be good to see younger royals get a bit more with it on this matter, perhaps Wills and Kate could fly the rainbow flag each year for London Pride when they finally move into Kensington Palace?

  82. The answer to that question is so simple. She is obviously homophobic. What we really need to discuss is why there are so many royalist queens supporting this homophobe, adoring her, defending her tooth and nail and supporting her rotten colonialist empire.

    1. Where is your evidence to demonstrate this homophobia?

      1. You can just look at her face. She is not very good at acting. When anything gay crosses her path her facial muscles twitch in sneer..

        1. Think perhaps you need to re-examine what the meaning of the word “evidence” is.

        2. Because you’ve had so many opportunities to see the Queen when someone (or thing) gay ‘crosses her path’, haven’t you Beberts?

          Riiiiiight. Time to go beddy-byes I think.

        3. Don’t be ridiculous. Well over half the staff in Buckingham Palace are gay.

          1. So according to Beberts he face would be a-twitching at least half her waking hours. Such a convincing theory, isn’t it?

    2. That’s a similar phenomenon to the Thatcherite queens. One one hand they play masochists, swallowing section 28 whole and forgetting it as if never happened, on the other hand they act as sadists and attack anyone who criticizes their cruel and adored goddesses.

  83. Boring tw@t

  84. Most of the comments on here completely miss the point.

    Peter was not arguing that the Queen should make some bold statement in favour of same-sex marriage, or anything like that. All he is saying is that our Head of State should actually be capable of acknowledging the LGBT community at some point during 60 years in the job.

    The Queen has managed to visit pretty much every bastion of modern Britain, from mosques to McDonalds restaurants. Yet during 60 years on the throne, she has never managed to visit one LGBT charity? Or hold one reception for those who do so much good work fighting for equal rights for homosexuals?

    Surely even the most ardent monarchist must admit this is a bit strange.

    Remember, the Queen is doing a job which we pay her handsomely for. As our Head of State she is there to represent all of us. If she can reach out to those of different races, faiths and backgrounds, she should be capable of reaching out to those people of a different sexual orientation too.

    1. I agree there are questions that can be posed.

      Jumping to the conclusion that this means the Queen is homophobic is pure speculation.

    2. Your comment makes a lot of sense but only draws out aspects of PT’s article. He explicitly poses a serious and unsustainable charge, ‘The monarchy is homophobic’. I also agree that this is the wrong time to make this attack, so purposeful and so spiteful. Nobody likes a partypooper. I think people commenting on here are reacting to that and the more ranting elements of his article.

    3. auntie babs 2 Jun 2012, 1:48am

      out of those 60 yfurther 20 it was something tolerated but not talked about… actual fact it is only the last 5-7 years that gay rights have been taken seriously in the UK…..and at the end of the day I am not aware of 1 single instance of the queen saying 1 single homophobic word….I do, however, remember Peter Thatchell jumping to the defence of someone who thought it was ok to post homophobic comments on facebook in the name of freedom of speach.ears, for 20 of them, rightly or wrongly (and definately wrongly) homosexuality was illegal in the UK….for a

      1. auntie babs 3 Jun 2012, 10:25am

        wow….my post here got mangled up…..what it was saying was within last 60 years (rightly or wrongly) lgbt issues have only been really acceptable things to be discussed for the last 5 or 7 years…for over 20 being gay was illegal, for another 20+ it was something that was just not discussed….to say that The Queen has satayed silent for 60 years on a subject that she would not have been allowed to talk about just shows up this article for the badly written, flawed logic bit of rubbish that it is.

  85. It’s enough with that old queen in the Vatican shooting off her mouth.

  86. Spanner1960 1 Jun 2012, 9:02pm

    Good to see Skeletor is still bitching his foul leftie bile as usual.

    If you don’t like our Queen, fck off back to Australia and organise a republic from there and leave us alone!

  87. turd burglars kiddy fiddlers club 1 Jun 2012, 9:05pm

    If they are molesting same sex hen they are either homosexual or bisexual paedophiles idiot. Because the targets are young does not neutralize the persons prientation. Everyone has a sexual orientation, including paedos. Paedos that molest same sex kids are certainly not heterosexual paedos are they. They must be one of the other two then…

    1. Good to see you focusing on the topic at hand as always, Keith old fruit.

      1. Rehan everytime we respond to the troll it scores a hit and we all lose. Please join us and ignore the trolls on this site.

        1. Paddyswurds 4 Jun 2012, 7:26pm

          Seems as if Rehan isn’t on the same page or team as the rest of us so to speak..he insists on conversation with this creep ,, best just mark him down too.

    2. Inspector Keith 1 Jun 2012, 10:40pm

      And your orientation is nosexual Keith.

      1. Please do not feed the troll. The sooner we all ignore them the sooner we are going to be free of them.

        1. I see “Inspector” and “Keith” having a conversation here….. well, if you can’t have one with yourself, who can you?

    3. Leave the hens out of it!

  88. @In Need of Inspection: if you must be a pompous jackass (and it seems you must), at least try to understand the use of the apostrophe.

    1. The inspector is obviously Keith. The same time stamp on all the comments. And the same obsession with paedophilia and an obvious lack of education. Its a delight to see how desperate that heinous cretin has become.

      1. I don’t agree, Will. The Expectoration Generous is beyond tedious, but not actually a frothing semi-literate ranter like Keith. Don’t underestimate our enemies, they’re not always the very lowest level of nutters, sometimes they’re the one-but-the-lowest.

  89. You should realise that one shouldn’t speak out of one’s @nus either, old fruit, though you clearly do.

  90. Rather wishing I’d put a bit of thought into this now

    I somehow doubt I’m alone in wishing this happened oftener.

  91. Monarchies are corrupted and manipulated by default, but not necessarily evil on themselves. Even if a monarch or a royal family itself wishes to make radical social reforms in its own nation they soon realize they are just puppets to a whole corrupted political system that manipulates them and the country. For example Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in 18th century France and the Romanov Family in Russia, despite being themselves incompetent rulers responsible for many bloodsheds in their countries were not that bad as political propaganda of their times painted them and were mostly victims of a corrupt autocratic upbringing and surrounded by a body of parasitic aristocracy that are the real ones to blame for their executions. So let’s say Queen Elizabeth II or even younger members of the Royal Family like William and Kate want to support same sex marriage and other less aristocratic causes.

  92. Do you think the Anglican Church and even their families would let them express their own opinions ? I don’t think so.

    Let me say however I don’t necessarily agree with Peter Tatchell (and as I am also not British I don’t know the man) to hastily label the current monarchy as homophobic. To tell the truth I feel sorry for monarchs, as they can never be real people.

  93. Please do not feed the trolls.

  94. New Aussie 1 Jun 2012, 10:36pm

    Another reason to dislike the monarchy! down with all this aristocracy and bring on the republic!

  95. Inspector Keith 1 Jun 2012, 10:42pm

    Hate to break it to you, but gay people do have children.

    They’re not sterile, don’t you know ?

    1. unlike the inspector

  96. I’d sooner expect a similar word from my grandparents, if they were still alive. It didn’t really matter even if they loved me – there were some things most of their generation simply couldn’t talk about, for whatever reason. I do know that, when they were adults in their prime in the 1950s and 1960s, such topics were absolutely taboo to raise, whether one was sympathetic or not. The Kinsey Reports may have been assumption-shattering professionally, but notions cultural proprietary often endure in their generation and only die off with their very elderly subscribers. It’s rather sad, but most people who held old prejudices and taboos clung to them quite religiously to their death beds. In those cases, the fact that these notions are no longer with us is only reflective of how few of the generation who believed them still survive.

  97. There was a documentary a while ago about the queens staff at windsor and its history that noted she has had an unusually high number of gay male staff over the years, many of which she supposedly chose from her own criteria. This might be simple pragmatism; no wife or children to distract from duties, but it suggests at least that she is tolerant of lgbt, even if she cannot publicaly show so.

    1. It isn’t difficult to be ‘tolerant’ of your staff – the most extreme of racists in the Southern USA employed African-American staff and, provided they ‘knew their place’, were probably quite often rather fond of them. That doesn’t mean they weren’t still racists.

  98. auntie babs 2 Jun 2012, 2:13am

    so, the Queen has never made a homophobic comment and gets stick from Peter Thatchell….is this the same Peter Thatchell who was a few months ago offering his services in defence of someone who was posting homophobic comments on their facebook page?

    1. auntie babs 2 Jun 2012, 2:23am

      the worst piece of journalism since Jan Moir put pen to paper on the eve of Stephen Gately’s funeral.

      1. Something of an overstatement, don’t you think?

        1. auntie babs 3 Jun 2012, 10:37am

          no…i don’t…both were written/published on the eve of an important event….both dressed the writers opinion up and presented it as fact…both were badly researched and full of logic errors and the writers obvious need to diss the subject in question. Of the 2 articles Jan Moirs was easily and by miles the worst (which is why I used the word “since” in my original comment.).

          1. IMO since Jan Moir’s deplorable article there must have been dozens of worse pieces of journalism than PT’s effort here. I seriously doubt anyone – especially knowing PT’s republicanism – would find anything even remotely equating the offensiveness of Moir’s repellent article in his (which to my mind at least raises some interesting, if not entirely convincing, points).

    2. The kween is at the very least guilty of indifference and neglect. Sixty years of total negligence, with LGBT people being persecuted, imprisoned, beaten, etc, and done nothing at all. And let’s not forget, homophobia has been one of the most successful exported cultural products of her very own putrid empire… If the kween is really “serving” and “working” for the nation, let’s make her wear proud pink and be seen frequently mingling with gay rights charities for a start. Will that happen? Probably not even in your wildest dreams… Will one of her grandchildren wear “funny” nazzi uniforms at parties again? Most probably.

      1. You appear not to have noticed, but there is no empire any more. But don’t let an inconvenient truth spoil your posturing.

        1. The only noticeable thing in here is the fear some people have of losing what they perceive as their rightful empire. .. and what is still left of it … goin down all the same… they must learn it has never been theirs to start with and are just immoral lootings, robbery, pillage, from ravaging acts of depredation, piracy, invasions, brutality, still being subtly financed and promoted to this very day by the likes of Royal Travesties and their loyal enablers.

          1. As I’ve already said, you clearly don’t understand what empire means. I suggest you invest in a dictionary. A few history books might help too. Just a thought.

  99. “Why wont the Queen embrace the Queens?”

    This headline is rather crass and pejorative!

    ” Whereas most of us now welcome and embrace lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people”

    The headline in itself flatters neither writer or reader. It instantly strikes a tone of discord to distance a vast majority (I am sure there are exceptions) of the LGBT community who regardless of political correctness… but self respect, for themselves and others offended to be described as such by either LGBT or homophobes.

    Were this headline elsewhere and not here on PN. I am sure that we would be reading of outrage about the pejorative use of it else where here on PN!

  100. ‘ Most of now welcome and embrace LGBT people’
    I’d say that some people tolerate, because they’ve been forced to, but welcome and embrace is a bit strong.
    We are a minority and minorities are only ever tolerated, as long as they behave themselves; and this is simply because they exactly that a minority.
    Anything other is sheer pretence.

  101. what a stupid article to make a comment on….so i wont bother….God Bless her Majesty and enjoy your day off everybody…

  102. Years ago I once read the royal household was exempt from many acts of parliament, including the Race Relations Act. Since the latter is, along with various other acts, now incorporated into the Equality Act 2010 I wonder if the royals are exempt from this too???

    1. The Royals are not exempt from the Equality Act.

  103. Spanner1960 2 Jun 2012, 10:34am

    This is just socialist monarchy-bashing hiding under the blanket of persecution of minorities.

    People in the public gaze get constantly attacked for saying the wrong things, the wrong words, the wrong comments regarding LGBT people, but this is the first time I have seen anybody accused of NOT saying anything.

    For fcks sake Tatchell, grow some balls and start pointing out the elephant in the room, like Muslims and immigrant homophobia instead of picking on soft targets like an 84 year old woman that works a damn sight harder than you do, often for charitable causes.

    You really are a tosser of the highest order.

    1. Peter is in the right direction. He is closer now to the real enemy we face, i.e. why some queens protect inexcusable homophobia by deflecting the attention to well known scapegoats.

      1. Spanner1960 2 Jun 2012, 1:03pm

        If this article isn’t ‘deflection’ I don’t know what is.

    2. Paddyswurds 3 Jun 2012, 11:52pm

      And still you spew hatred and racism.
      How are you any better than the trolls infecting this site.
      You seem to forget that the entire map was once coloured red where the sun never set on the British Empire and the blood never dried.
      Most of those seeking a better life now in Britain come from those countries once coloured red.
      Don’t they have the same rights the British once took for granted when they invaded those countries and stole their natural resources and enslaved their people, Spanner?

      1. Spanner1960 12 Jun 2012, 7:13pm

        It was pink actually, you ignorant Irish twat. (oh, and Ireland was part of our empire too.)

    3. well said Spanner. can PN and Tatchell just give it a rest for a couple of days at least? The Queen is not in the habit of giving interviews or expressing opinions on anything. She’s never said anything about women’s rights either. Does that mean she is a sexist too? Good grief.

  104. sixty glorious years . . . and one paty pooper 2 Jun 2012, 11:07am

    The only good thing about Peter Tatchell is that he has (negatively) taught the rest of us not to confuse issues when seeking to promote LGBT rights. Here he is again, using gay community rhetoric to trash the monarchy. Can you imagine what would happen if was successful in this endeavour and his sort took over the place? Within weeks the country would would sink into civil war between anarchists like him and Cherie Blair wannabes. Do us all a favour Peter, retire.

    1. What is ‘gay community rhetoric’?

      1. He does adopt a rhetorical strategy which suggests he speaks for all LGBTs. For example, he writes ‘it seems that we are the unspeakable ones’ (I, for one, am not happy being a ‘we’ alonside Peter Tatchell) and occasional explicit references to ‘the LGBT community’. It’s a pernicious device that he often adopts to ghettoize LGBTs; i.e., make out that being gay is akin to being in a club. Of course, by adopting the stance of spokesperson for this club in media contexts he places himself in a position of unelected authority. Basic power-mongering tactics. Really quite mundane nowadays.

  105. An extremist view from an extremist person. Tatchell’s views should be taken with a pinch of salt as it is incredibly biased to fit his own misguided views.

  106. Never met the man, and thankfully have never met you (if one is known by the company one keeps)!

  107. As the Supreme Head of the Church of England, which, like many religions, prohibit homoseuality, she cannot speak out for homosexuality. However Queen Victoria only mentioned ‘sodomites’ as being illegal – she didn’t belive in lesbianism. I imagine the Queen doesn’t discriminate between the two in order to avoid further discrimination. The Royal Family will probably never openly admit any of their gay ancestors.

    However I truly disbelieve that there are no members of the LGBT community working for the Royal Fanily and I have no doubt that the Queen would be aware of their sexuality and just not care either way.

  108. Orf with his head!

  109. Paddyswurds 2 Jun 2012, 3:44pm

    ….Who pray is going to hold Peter Tatchell to account. He is totally independent, and has depended on charity of like minded people all his life so he himself could put his life on the line for those who now enjoy some of the rights and benefits that he personally fought for. . I have no doubt that had Tatchell chosen to be a teacher or finance he would now be a rich man….. He like all human beings has his faults, and quite often those perceived faults are not universal, just some peoples opinion, some of them irrationally bitter and abusive, for a man who has confronted armed hench men of despotic dictators in the name of human rights….I will forgive him Any faults or indiscretions, he deserves no less.

  110. Oh do go away, you insufferable pillock.

  111. Nor would one wish to associate with anyone as repulsive as the Inspector General.

    1. Or as boring.

      1. I thought you were supposed to be “a good Christian chap”, Inspector.

        You should go and wash you mouth out with soap and water (but please don’t stop there – please wash your bigoted brain out too!).

        Then perhaps get down on your knees and seek forgiveness.

      2. “c_nts”

        Tut tut, temper, temper, mon peu fou.

        Such a lack of erudition and breeding….. then again, his mother probably smoked and drank excessively when she was pregnant with her brothers child.

  112. Paddyswurds 2 Jun 2012, 3:57pm

    … .. … My opinion on Peter Tatchells essay is irrelevant being that Elizabeth Windsor is a British Queen, but I do like her as a human being , albeit a well pampered one , but not by her choice she was born that way! Lillibet is a woman though who I would like know and be friends with were she just my neighbour down the road
    Her life or work however, has no effect on me what so ever, so I am totally neutral as to how she regards her legitimate “subjects”……….

    1. Paddyswurds 2 Jun 2012, 3:59pm

      ……well pampered one, but ……is not Queen ….by choice, ***

  113. I have enormous admiration for the Queen and I think she does her job very well, yet I don’t think Tatchell’s points in this article are necessarily bad ones. Still, the Queen hasn’t actually spoken out against racism either, and I don’t assume she promotes racism by not doing so.

    But I do wish people would stop droning on about the number of gay people who work for the royal family as though that somehow makes them all gay-friendly: it doesn’t necessarily follow, any more than employing African-American or Hispanic staff in the USA automatically absolves employers of being racist.

    What would be far more telling is how they are with family and friends who’re gay, and as to that most of us will never really know – but I suspect they wouldn’t be overly encouraging, if only on the don’t-frighten-the-horses principle.

    1. Its certainly an interesting article and the question of whether or not the Queen is homophobic is an interesting area to consider and ponder over.

      I do not think that absence of comment on racism, homophobic, misogyny or other forms of prejudice means that a person endorses such prejudice.

      In the same way someone may not make comment on a particular musician but their failure to do so neither means they do or do not enjoy the art of that musician.

      Having gay staff whilst a positive sign that gay people are not being excluded, does not (in itself) rule out that the employer is or is not homophobic.

      However, I do not think PTs comments are logical in reaching a conclusion that the Queen is homophobic – he fails to evidence this point and I feel his timing and method of doing so is more wrapped up in his republicanism than any sense of affront (based on genuine fact) that the Queens attitude to LGBT people is or is not acceptable.

  114. This has got to be the WORST piece of journalism that I have ever seen. I’ve read some nonsense before, but this article has absolutely no substance to it whatsoever. How on Earth can you write an article based on something that someone HASN’T said?

    I’m not exactly a Royalist but I cannot believe that on the 60th anniversary of her Majesty’s Coronation, someone would take such a cheap shot at her by writing something so negative and unjustified, at a time when most of the country are engaging in celebrations. There is a real sense of unity across the nation this Jubilee weekend; this article does nothing to support a sense of unity and serves no greater purpose, whatsoever.

  115. The Queen’s writing a letter of condolence to the singer Peter Pears after the death of his long-term partner, the composer Benjamin Britten, definitely counts as a statement of some sort.

    Particularly as this was in 1976.

    This was recently commented on in the Telegraph as
    “When Benjamin Britten died in 1976, she sent a supposedly private but in fact distinctly public message of condolence to Peter Pears: a gesture that all the newspapers remarked on as significant.”

    1. As if the kween writes letters like that … even the shameful orders of the empire are mass manufactured … her imperial machine is rewarding very nasty people to help keep her fortune by financing and promoting chaos all over the world. Ask the Chagossians what they think about this vile woman…

      1. Spanner1960 2 Jun 2012, 11:07pm

        I’m surprised you are not blaming the New World Order or aliens for your conspiracy theories.

      2. So if (with your personal insight into these matters) you’re saying she didn’t write the letter personally, was the letter of condolence to a recently-ennobled gay man’s lifelong partner the result of the policy of the Royal Household or the government of the time?

        1. Have you read the letter? If so, please send us a link so we can all see what exactly is written in it. Otherwise we both can only speculate. Was it expressly mentioned that the condolence was to a gay man’s “lifelong partner”, or is it the works of your wishful imagination? If you’re right though, it follows the kween is such a wonderful person and so gay friendly, so she must personally write and send letters of congratulations to newly wed gay couples too, don’t you think? Do you have any evidence of that?

          1. I haven’t seen the letter, no. But do you seriously believe the Telegraph, of all gay-unfriendly outlets, is going to authorise reference to a letter that doesn’t exist?

            Incidentally, if you’re so hot on evidence, can you provide evidence that the “empire” you refer to repeatedly exists? (Hint: computer says no.)

          2. IF such a letter exists. IF there is a mention to a “lifelong partner” … IF… IF… IF… IF… there are so many IFs playing with your imagination… and still what guides you is a stubborn disbelief in spoiled, bigoted and tyrant “royal” brats, and their embodiment and enforcement of evil machinations of an empire. Do you really think an empire can come to existence and disappear with the blink of an eye? Evidence of the existence of the british empire are still all over the world, and being promoted and enforced, but if you can’t accept this reality, nothing presented to you will convince you of its existence. You will always find a way of denying it. You should try to mingle more often with the victims of the empire, and listen to them instead of admiring or defending their tormentors.

          3. Evidence of the existence of the british empire are still all over the world

            IF you understood the meaning of the word ’empire’ you might also be able to comprehend the meaning of the word ‘evidence’. But, admittedly, it’s a big IF.

          4. Empire and evidence indeed. Those are two words puzzling your mind at the moment. Pomp and circumstances apart, I’ll make sure you never forget what they really are about:


          5. In 2000 Chagossians won the right to return to their homeland as the London High Court ruled their eviction had been illegal and that they could return. This hope in 2004 however was crushed as Kweenie Lizzie signed an order prohibiting their return to the islands permanently.

          6. Lizzie should lose all of her belongings, have her corgis gassed and be evicted with all of her family from the island. That’s the only way she’ll be able to experience what her empire has done to the Chagossians.

          7. If these sort of things don’t turn your stomach, you are beyond help.

          8. Thank you Beberts. However shameful the Chagos Islands story may be, you still don’t understand the meaning of the word ’empire’, do you? Nor, I think, do you comprehend the role the Queen plays in the UK government. And above all, your 4 consecutive and, frankly, hysterical posts suggest it’s not I who’s beyond help.

          9. …and as I expected, you are in denial and definitely beyond help at this moment, …but perhaps, just perhaps, you too could come to understand, if you suffer the same fate of the Chagossians. Then, since you are so puzzled with the meaning of words, such an life changing event could clarify your mind, and know exactly what the word empire means to the vast majority of the people of the World.

          10. Tell us Rehan, what do you think are the odds of you having your pets destroyed, together with your belongings, and being evicted from the home and island with all of your family? What are the odds of you, after going through all of that, winning the right to return to your home, just to have it overturned with the stroke of a pen, by a tyrant of an imperial and colonial power that stands 6,000 miles away? What are the odds? Tell us…. as if you would know…

          11. Poor dear, you still don’t get it, do you? Never mind, life’s probably easier if you believe one swallow makes a summer. (Time for you to swallow something else too, perhaps?)

          12. …, and you think you can come here and lecture anyone about semantics and the “role” of the kween … as if the Chagossians wouldn’t know …

          13. …and aside the Chagossians’ case, hopefully you will remember this conversation when someone else comes to you trying to lecture you about the meaning of the word m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e, and the role of the p-o-p-e … listen carefully to their words, and pity them if you can …

          14. The relevance of the Chaggosians to either the Queens opinion on LGBT people or a letter from the monarch to Mr Pears – is what, exactly?

          15. Criminal attrocities committed by tyrants are related and relevant to their thoughts and actions. Even Adolf’s propaganda machine painted him as as an adorable person and leader, but after knowing about his crimes ….

          16. I note you make a political comment and decline to answer the question I posed.

            Perhaps you will show the good grace to answer these instead:

            Specifically, what criminal offence has the Queen personally committed in relation to Chagissians?

            What is the relevance of any of this to the letter from the Queen to Mr Pears?

          17. The tyrant’s crimes are all around to anyone willing to research and see. I’ve mentioned just one of them above. If you want to be more specific, the words ethnic and cleasing come to mind. The Chagossians are the victims, not the other way around. The relevance of the tyrant’s crimes to any of her other activities is up to you to decide.

          18. Instead of giving a non-answer can you address the questions I give specifically.

            I am asking how you perceive the Queen has acted criminally that makes you feel that giving such provocative comments is appropriate.

            I am not asking what I could research and form an opinion that does or does not agree with this point. You raised the opinion – back it up with evidence.

            Oh and again, what is the link to the letter from the Queen to Mr Pears?

          19. Steve, if you read the above messages from top to bottom, paying attention to each one of them, you’ll find the answers.

          20. There are two issues that remains here, Beberts

            I have read, re-read and read again all the comments carefully (including cyber links) and you have not answered, at all, what the relevance of any of your comments are about the Chaggosians to the letter to Mr Pears – could you address this issue?

            Secondly, you mention that the Queen signed an order preventing return to the islands. Now, was this an order issued by the government of the day? If so, how would you determine that a constitutional monarch should decide which orders from her democratically elected government she should refuse to sign and which she should agree to?

          21. … as if the the tyrant has been under duress for 60 odd years… it’s up to you personally to decide about the relevance of her crimes … I’m just exposing them, and making sure no one ever forgets…

          22. Beberts

            You continue to fail to give evidence of any link with the letter from the Queen to Mr Pears. Care to elaborate?

            Also, please explain how a constitutional monarch is committing a crime when she follows the will of a democratically elected government? If there is a crime its those who wrote the policy/bill/order and then enacted – not that of a figurehead.

          23. If you really read all the postings above, you’d know I do not have any link to the letter, but if you find the link, please post it for us all to read. Many other tyrants followed the will of their democratically elected government, including a well known german politician in the early 20th century. The kween is not the person you think she is… and is well known around the World, to be as cruel as any other tyrant …

          24. I suggest you go and read up what a constitutional monarchy is. You seem unable to understand that principle.

            Your claims about this “wicked woman” are without foundation and irrelevant to the issue of the letter to Mr Pears – about which you started commenting.

            Therefore, you clearly set about to maliciously and irrelevantly malign the good name of the Queen.

            You old sour and ignorant “Queen”

          25. You suggest the tyrant has been under some sort of duress for 60 years, forced to commit attrocities against her will and I’m the one who doesn’t understand how constitutional monarchies work …. The kween is Evil impersonated because that’s what she is, very simple, together with all of her other bloodsucking enablers. If she had any humanity in her bones she could’ve very well indeed refused to sign… and you should know that, since you are boasting a superior knowledge of how constitutional monarchies work. You should read a book before suggesting it to someone else. The kween has been totally ignoring the suffering and persecution of LGBT people for 60 years, and if you want to understand why she has done so, you need to get out of your idolatrous frame of mind…

          26. If your view is correct then you will be able to provide 2 or 3 examples of when the Queen refused to sign any enactement, bill etc of any democratic Commonwealth government?

          27. What? Are you still trying to suggest the tyrant is being forced to sign against her will? Get real. Monarchs can and indeed refuse to participate in cruelty, and they can also abdicate. Kweenie Lizzie is really a heartless woman and cares only about her own very overlicked arsse. That’s the reality you are denying. Perhaps you’d like to see her as a stupid person who doesn’t know or understand the power she has or what she is doing… which would be grounds for her deposition … which one do you prefer? The evil kween or the stupid one?

          28. No, I am not suggesting she is being physically threatened. I am suggesting she recognises her constitutional responsibility to accede to democratic will as a constitutional monarch.

            I see you can not or choose not to give evidence of any occasion when the Queen refused to sign bills of democratic government – because there are none; because she recognises her constitutional responsibility.

            The last refusal was by Queen Anne in 1707, over a bill to settle the militia in Scotland.

            What would happen if our present Queen were to say ‘La reine s’avisera’? Nobody knows. Obviously the Bill would not become an Act, but it would provoke a ‘constitutional crisis’ which would be all the more bitter since we don’t really have a constitution. It’s impossible to predict the outcome of such a dispute.

            In practice it’s virtually inconceivable that a monarch would provoke a crisis by refusing to assent to a bill that had (in all probability) been initiated by an elected government and approve

          29. by both the Commons and the Lords. The monarchy needs popular support these days, and that wouldn’t normally be the way to get it.

            I suppose you can think up scenarios in which the monarch might claim to be justified. For example, a government that had been elected with a good majority might become thoroughly unpopular and face virtual extinction at a forthcoming election. It might then seek to perpetuate itself by putting forward a bill to extend the life of the current Parliament to (say) 10 years. And it might be able to put pressure on the Lords to vote it through. In such a case, the people might look to the monarch to refuse assent and send the government and parliament packing.

            But again, this sort of thinking is fanciful. The fact is that, although we have no real constitution, we have a set of conventions that serve as one. No politician or monarch would, in reality, set up a crisis like this.

            So your claim that signing a bill is a criminal matter is false. Its a duty

          30. Duty indeed… this is the excuse used by most tyrants when confronted with their crimes: “I had to do it, they made me do it”… This only confirms the evil machinations of the monarchy. The kween does not give a hoot and participates willfully in the attrocities being committed against the Chagossians, as long as she can keep her own and her family’s power and lavish lifestyle.

          31. I note you continue with bluster, but yet are unable to give 2 or 3 examples of when this Queen has refused to sign any government bill or order.

            Because there are none since 1707. Your argument she is committing a crime holds no water – she is following constitutional convention.

            If a crime has been committed then it is by the government NOT the monarch.

            Your bile is bluster seeking to demonise a woman doing her duty and who has not criminal intent.

          32. You can deny as much as you want, affirm she has been ‘forced to’ and had no other choice but to ‘perform a duty’. You can also play with as many layers and buffers as you want, trying to protect your idolised tyrant. However, the shocking reality of the facts are so awful that no matter how much the establishment try to spin and conceal them, the cat is already out of the bag, and they won’t be able to protect those who participate in such horrific crimes, particularly if they hold positions of power. History books will remember the tyrant’s criminal role in all attrocities she has participated in, on her own volition. And the next generations will ask themselves how come some people have sided with such horrific things and tried to defend the indefensible.

          33. You haven’t even once minded the real victims of this whole sad story, the Chagossians. You even raised doubts if such horrific facts can indeed be considered crimes, affirming in one of your posts above: “IF there is a crime”. There’s a big IF in your mind, blurring your thoughts. Unless you first and foremost have a very long reflection on your own personal values, you won’t be able to see the real tyranny behind the propaganda. I’m assuming that’s what you really want in good faith of course.

    2. A Suffolk newspaper that is unfortunately now closed published a copy of the reported letter around 18 months after Britten died.

      Neither the Royal family, Pears or any other person contested the legitimacy of the letter published, and to my knowledge there were no suggestions of fabrication made connected to that local newspaper either before this report or after.

      On this basis, and other reports of the letter – I find it highly likely such a letter did indeed exist.

  116. The Queen never mentions any other Queens,she never goes like “My husband and I visited this other Queen called Beatrix when we was in the Netherlands” or nothing, does it make her anti-royalty?

    1. Actually she does — but the point is that she visits them. I don’t expect the Queen to support a Gay Pride t-shirt, but a visit to a LGBT charity would go a long way.
      Let me stress I don’t for one moment think that the Queen is homophobic.


    1. TATCHELL!!

  118. The Mental 'Elf 3 Jun 2012, 12:41am

    she employs mostly gay men as palace staff, cos you don’t want an H.R.H. hitching there wagon to a butcher’s son, who isn’t smarter to do more than cut around the bushes.
    Think of the ourtcry if, a Princess married a footman.
    Called Waiyne from Pontifract?

  119. Didn’t a former senior royal have a relationship with Noel Coward?

    1. I read a book on Royal Scandals and it claimed that Queen Anne had a lesbian affair with Lady Churchill I think it was.
      I suppose her husband, Prince George, was only there to help produce an heir – he failed.

      1. Queen Anne was very much under Sarah Churchill’s thumb emotionally, but whether she was by temperament gay or not is open to question. She had 17 pregnancies by her husband, so I suspect he pretty much did his duty (whether purely by duty or not we will never know!).

    2. The Duke of Kent was supposed to have had.

      1. The present Duke of Kent’s father.

        1. Yes, the one born in 1902 and not the one born in 1935. I thought it’d have been obvious, but perhaps I should have been more specific.

  120. Crown Prince Fredrik of Denmark has many gay friends and has always been very supportive of the gay community.

  121. Ferdinand 3 Jun 2012, 9:52am

    The Queens uncle,Prince George was reputed to be gay.King Edward II was known to be gay.

    1. Paddyswurds 3 Jun 2012, 11:21am

      As was William of Orange.who used to drag up in his wifes clothes in private….

  122. I started reading the article feeling that it was ungenerous but having finished it I agree with him “It seems that we are the unspeakable ones..” Point well made. I do remember however, that Prince Charles visited the Admiral Duncan pub after the bomb.

  123. I see the animal is trying to extort a reaction here too…. ignoring the trolls has proven to been most enjoyable.

    1. Those people who have something useful to say get an appropriate comment. Others get a thumb up (or down). Those that require simple ignoring (like those trolls whose identities are entirely forgettable) are ignored and treated with contempt. They have no relevance and so do not deserve comment.

      It feels good for the soul to take this approach!

      1. And the best bit? All its work, all its typing, all its emotional frustration, will be wiped away by PN tomorrow as soon as their offices open!

        LMFAO! Simply marvellous.

        1. Well maybe Wednesday (due to BH and skeleton service) but nonetheless there will be many deletions – Yee hah!

  124. With 9 out of 14 countries where Elizabeth II is Queen still consider homosexuality to be a criminal act. So she could make a huge difference by speaking up for equal gay rights, it is quite shocking that she does not.

    1. You keep saying this – repeatedly, ad naseum, using repeatedly the same words.

      Its very odd that its acceptable for you to use EXACTLY the same words repeatedly on this thread and see that as acceptable, but you find it appropriate to castigate Sara who explains (with different phrases) why the Queen does not address politicial issues when she responds to your identical comments.

      It lacks logic to assume that not saying something about a subject matter is expressing an opinion!

      1. Forget Sara whoever she/he/ it is.
        Do you not think it is shocking Stu that in 9 out of 14 commonwealth countries homosexuality is presently criminalised and the Queen has had nothing to say about this human rights abuse over her sixty years reign? Is she unaware of it? Does she need to be informed perhaps? There doesn’t seem to be any joined-up thinking going on.

        1. I agree that its shocking that homosexuality is criminalised in those countries.

          I would prefer the Queen to speak out on that issue, however do not expect her to – it would be seen (whether legitimately or not) as taking a political stance – which is outside her role as a constitutional monarch.

          I notice that when the UK made a policy on linking international aid to human rights including LGBT rights and widely publicised this at the last CHOGM summit in Perth, Australia – the Queen did not comment. Equally, she has not commented on the criminalisation of homosexuality. Now, is not commenting on the criminalisation an indication she supports it – if so, is such a similar lack of comment on the UK government policy on aid and LGBT rights an endorsement? If silence is support, then she is silent on many issues.

          We should be seeking full equality throughout the UK, Commonwealth and globe. I am not convinced the Queen is the best tool to ensure that aim.

      2. ” but you find it appropriate to castigate Sara”
        I did no such thing, asking a question is not a castigation.

    2. The trolls appear to keep changing their names, as if they do not think we cannot see through their attempts to seek attention.

      Mark down, ignore, no comment – they will disappear and realise their trolling is baseless and pointless.

      They are the dregs of society and deserve no interaction.

      1. I don’t know if you are calling me a troll or not, I don’t understand why you would.
        Anyway with the Queen’s Jublilee celebrations going on it is a good time to point out that there are tragic human and civil rights injustices in too many of the Commonwealth countries Elizabeth is Queen of, that gay people are being criminmalised for simply being who they are is something that needs to be brought to people’s attention.
        Whether or not it is the Queens official role to make comment about her subjects it is a good time to ask why homosexual people are criminalised in 9 out of 14 countries she represents as figurehead. It is a shameful situation and I think she could do more to ensure that she is not seen to be propping up this legal injustice and human rights anomaly.

  125. Easy to assess your ability to pass any IQ test, fortunately.

    1. Paddyswurds 3 Jun 2012, 11:35pm


      1. Good advice, I wish I’d follow it more often.

  126. TATCHELL.

    FFS how difficult can it possibly be for people to spell his name correctly? Do you have “learning difficulties” or something? (On second thoughts, don’t bother answering, it’s pretty obvious.)

  127. Why does anyone even care about silly old monarchs? I mean, it’s not like many politicians are better than her, but she doesn’t even do anything. British traditions are silly.

    1. Well, you obviously felt strongly enough to comment. What do you think that says about you?

  128. Spanner1960 4 Jun 2012, 3:20pm

    At last the vituperous sh|tebag demonstrates his true colours – Like I had already suspected this has nothing to to with LGBT rights and everything to do with Tatchell’s personal vendetta towards our monarchy:

    “Anti-monarchists stage Thames riverside protest against Jubilee pageant but spectators drown them out with jeers.

    Among the republicans was gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who said in a speech that he had ‘nothing against the Queen’ but that he hated the institution of monarchy.

    He said: ‘This Queen has not been a disaster. But you only have to look back to the 1930s and King Edward VIII, a man who sympathised with the N@zi regime.’

    Mr Tatchell branded the monarchy ‘racist’ because there would never be a black or Asian on the throne while the Windsor family held it, and he accused the Queen of not representing all British people as she had never visited a gay or lesbian organisation.”

    1. Would you marry a dominant Romani person Spanner?

      1. Spanner1960 4 Jun 2012, 5:59pm

        I am already married thanks. (To a South African guy, incidentally)

    2. My family has never had a non-white member – following PT’s logiv this makes my family racist – an allegation I would find repulsive and arrogant.

    3. Tatchell doesn’t know when to quit. I like him but he’s completely misjugded this. If he hates the monarchy so much, why did he move to britiain all those years ago?

      1. Just to act as Devil’s Advocate for a moment, perhaps he felt there’s more to the UK than its monarchy? Not exactly an unfair point. (You might also care to reflect that the Queen is still queen of Australia too.)

        1. Spanner1960 5 Jun 2012, 10:49am

          Of course there is, but that is not the point of this rabid rant.
          Tatchell has a bee in his bonnet about the monarchy, like many left-wingers. He is using his public gay-rights persona simply as a vehicle to take potshots at the royal family.

          I saw a thing the other day about cookery legend Delia Smith who wants to use her presentation knowledge to push Catholicism on the masses, as she is apparently very devout – using one’s public stance to try and convert people on other issues is totally immoral in my opinion, and I think in the long term these people are likely to alienate more people than they attract.

      2. … as if people need to love the tyrants to move to britain …

        1. Spanner1960 5 Jun 2012, 10:50am

          If I had my way, it would be mandatory.

  129. In the Great Book of British Quotes in the homosexual section the Queen Mother is quoted as saying something like “there very handy, we couldnt run the palace without them” – its not an exact quote but it was along those lines. In fact they used to prefer male homosexual staff for their female family members. Although not exactly for the right reasons it means they don’t dislike LGBT and more to the point it was under the current Queen that homosexuality became legalized, if she disagreed she would have voiced as such and exerted greater influence over the public in such matters. The only thing homophobic is the title of this article suggesting that the LGBT community comprises of Queens and that all gay men are Queens – nice and stereotypical !

  130. I’m absolutely horrified at the amount of support the LGBT community are giving “queen” Elizabeth.

    1. The propaganda machine works everywhere. The “jubilee celebrations” remind me of royal and military parades with popular frenzy in what some people usually call failed states …

  131. Dr WinstonO'Boogie 5 Jun 2012, 5:45pm

    This is boring now, I’m gay and I’m fed up of other gays making people acknowledge their existence .. I don’t see a load of straights bemoan the fact that graham norton, Paul o Grady or Ellen Degeneres don’t validate their sexuality .. Straight people don’t thrust their straightness on gay people all the time. The Queen is the same age as my grandmother, we never discuss my sexuality or that if my gay uncle’s because she is of the generation where it isn’t spoken about. Can’t the queer nation please just get on with their lives and stop bitching about lack of validation. I know homophobia,beating and murder is still rife but it’s like that against a lot of minorities not just gays. Why should she mention anyone or validate anyone in her speeches ? And most of the time she doesn’t write them a handful of state secrateries do. You can’t please all of the people all of the time.

    1. Don’t even know where to begin with this. Straight people DO thrust their sexuality on us all the time – it just isn’t referred to as sexuality, just life. If a gay person mentions their sexuality, it is seen as ‘thrusting’ it down people’s throats; if a straight person mentions their wife, people don’t say ‘we get it you’re straight – stop shoving it down everyone’s throats!’ Really not convinced you’re actually gay…

  132. Thank You Pink News for doing the right thing in removing the very offensive troll posts on here.

    Thank You for blocking the IP addresses of those trolls who have been harassing users of PN.

    Please can you write a public editorial to explain how PN is responding to this attack on your service and your customers.

    1. Yep, PN should write an editorial, explaining in detail why it decided to conceal the attrocities being committed by the british establishment against the Chagossians.

      1. What planet are you on? This is relevant to PN how?

        1. Yes, it’s very relevant and important, but ignore what I have posted here on your patch… I’ve found the postings about the Chagossians again…

        2. PN, please also accept my apologies and ignore my posting above.

  133. TheGreatSpaces 6 Jun 2012, 2:12pm

    I think this really comes down to the kind of person the Queen is. She is a royal, and from a certain era as well – I don’t think my Nana has ever said the word ‘gay’ but she has said that she wishes I could get married to my partner. Does that make her homophobic? No.
    I think Tatchell is just confused as to what the role of the Queen actually is. The Queen does not discuss sexuality because that would be like saying penis or vagina – it’s just not proper. It’s the kind of neutrality born of ultra-politeness that has made the UK a relatively gay-friendly place, I say relatively, throughout the last century or more – no, she is not approving it or affirming it publicly, however neither was she condemning it publicly 60 years ago!
    She can’t just be expected to change her personality – she is not a political party, she is an individual person.

  134. Danny Barnes 6 Jun 2012, 4:48pm

    Why won’t the Queen embrace the queens?
    Good question and lots of reason’s.
    First look at her religious beliefs, she is very much an old style protestant, Bible is everything, if fact it’s the word of God, these people make the bible a deity, and it can be misused according to what you want it to say.
    The principle aim of a monarch is to produce an heir, to continue this anachronism, an institution based on inheritance and exclusive privilege. Therefore family is so important, and the monarchy has to support and project this image of one man with a woman and children, even though her family is proven to be dysfunctional.
    This is your country and mine, do not think for one moment the queen does not influence the elected government. My vote would be for a republic and have a head of state with a more meaningful role and who can be held to account.

  135. Shocking, Peter Tatchell uses the diamond jubilee to attack the queen and call her homophobic. What an opportunistic stupid rancid queen this man is. Sorry Peter but your stupid political correct views and miss use of the word homophobic to anyone who disagrees with you does your stupid self no good. Not that it ever did, you lost all your credibility when you called for the age of concent to be lowered to 14. You stupid old pervert.

    1. Jock S. Trap 9 Jun 2012, 6:54pm

      Here, Here, Graig.. well said!!

  136. David Skinner 7 Jun 2012, 7:24pm

    Surely the ultimate, narcissistic achievement for Peter Tatchell would be for him to disappear up his own anus. Now that would be something for the Queen, if not the whole nation to celebrate..

  137. Pavlos Prince of Greece 1 Sep 2012, 6:57pm

    Maybe because she itself have a hidden lesbian side – and very fears, that public support for gay people will be interpreted as a late coming out? Poor girl.

  138. The queen is the head of all religions , until she gives up that role , or religion grows up and excepts same sex relationships, the queen will always remain distant.. I would have thought that obvious.and pink paper it
    was originally spelled quoin meaning an effeminate male

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