I hope, its only first step for The Queen towards recognition, that some people in her Kingdom simple are gay. And its absolutely OK.
Secret lesbian honours openly gay men. Good. (Prince George, Duke of Kent, was be very proud)
Is this the place to post editing comments? This article seems highly important and historic, so someone might want to fix the spelling of the subject’s name, which seems to have picked up an ‘e’ in one sentence, and perhaps note the difference between the words “staring” and “starring”. Both of these apparent errors are in the opening sentence. As an American, I’d have to say I’m not a huge fan of royalty in general, but clearly while largely symbolic this is an absolutely huge story and should be taken very seriously. I for one carry Tim Barnett’s card in my wallet, who I believe was also involved in the creation of Stonewall UK.
Oops I’m blind too! I meant to note his name is either Cashman or Cashaman. So no wondering ‘e’, sorry. Huge story either way. Thanks for reporting it.
Good for him.
But we have a ‘queen’ as a head of state?
Have we ever had a referendum on whether we should become a democracy/republic with an elected head of state and an elected upper house.
It’s time for this election.
Polls regularly show that the British public support the monarchy. A referendum would only confirm this. Even in Australia the Monarchy was supported in a 1999 referendum which everyone assumed would favour a republic – and that was in the post-Diana period of unpopularity.
Someone once said only two words are needed to remind us of the value of the Queen – ‘President Thatcher’ (you can substitute ‘Blair’ if you wish).
Yes, but the referendum in Australia was a very close call, hardly a landslide. I’ve nothing personal against the Queen although I think the monarchy is an anachronism and irrelevant.
That said, I congratulate Michael Cashman, long overdue. I would love to hear him counter the BBC’s disgraceful display of anti equal marriage bias over Christmas. Someone needs to.
Liz Windsor is very popular woman.
Charles Windsor is far less popular.
Once Liz dies I think a referendum on whether to keep the monarchy or not is essential.
I don’t much subscribe to referenda of any kind. Don’t forget, the bigots opposing equal marriage want one, but for that only. Even if 63% of the British public support equal marriage, doesn’t necessarily translate into votes for it. Some people through complacency, apathy or both including some gay voters, don’t vote. It would be the same for abolition of the monarchy and the state cult.
The 2 are not comparable though.
A referendum on a minority’s civil rights is a gross idea.
A referendum on what type of political system we have is a different matter.
The current monarchical system we have is disgusting – an unelected head of state, who is the head of the official state cult – which is homophobic; an unelected upper house which includes bishops of the homophobic state cult; and a lower house which is selected using the massively primitive 1st past the post system.
I have no doubt that people would vote to keep Liz Windsor as the unelected head of state.
However it is time to begin the debate about her replacement.,
Apparently 1 out of every 3 people in Britain are republican.
You’d never be able to tell though as this is our undemocratic country’s dirty little secret.
Yet I don’t see the world flocking to the UK to see a son/daughter of a President getting married. To see a celebration of a President for ‘x’ amount of years. This adds to our economy, this adds to our history.
You may wish to become just another boring country but I, and many others, don’t.
Secondly, while I agree the House of Lords needs to be reformed a second chamber is vital to democracy.
Our Monarch is a Constitutional one only. She does make decisions, we elect for that and those to do so. This country would be a dull one without it’s Monarch.
Sorry meant she ‘doesn’t make decisions’…
Just a shame she didn’t.
I for one wouldn’t mind seeing a few MP’s heads on pikestaffs over London Bridge.
Tourists don’t flock to England because of the queen – they come for the pageantry and the history.
Meaningless traditions like the changing of the guard can be maintained and Buck House can be opened all year round for tourists which will be massively popular.
The president of England would be a ceremonial position – they too should have no power.
Quite frankly whether the ‘queen’ has any power or not is irrelevant – she remains the UNELECTED head of state.,
I want a referendum on whether we keep the monarch or not. I also want to see the abolition of the House of Lords and for it to be replaced by a democratically elected upper house.
And even if we decide to keep the ‘queen’ I think it is vital to have this election in the interests of democracy. People would vote to keep her no doubt.
But wait until that waste of space Charles comes to the throne. It will be a different story then.
doesnt your first sentance rather contradict the rest of your comment?
dAVID – yopu are forgetting how incredibly popular William and Kate are – amongst, particularly amongst the young. I hope QEII lives as long as her mother (101) and then I am certain the nation will be clamouring for a King William III and Queen Catherine. The monarchy is very important as a unifying force in this country.
Oops, sorry Wills, just remembered the King William IV gay pub in Hampstead, I meant King William V & Queen Catherine.
The monarchy is not a unifying force for the 33% of the population who want rid of it and who have been denied the chance to air their oppostion to the disgrace that is the British monarchy.
I want a referendum on getting rid of the monarchy.M
Many people do?
If everyone is so confident that \Britain will vote to keep this anachronism then it won’t hurt to have this referendum.
New Zealand doesn’t have an upper chamber and its government functions admirably. The first country to give women the vote too, not the UK or America even.
Even if we had an elected House of Lords, the only thing it would do is probably remove Anglican clergy, a good thing, but I’ve no doubt it would still have the same bigots, young and old alike. Not only that, it might see the end of the Parliament Act altogether giving more power to the Lords than ever before. I don’t want that unless there will be a provision for the Commons to circumvent the upper chamber.
At least then they would be ELECTED bigots sitting for a 5 year fixed term, who actually have a democratic mandate.
I have no issue with the House of Lords gaining more power – so long as they have a democratic mandate to use that power.
At the moment they do not – they are allowed to interfere in our democracy.
dAVID, yes, but we still don’t know if there would be a way to circumvent an elected upper house if the Parliament Act becomes meaningless. If there is, then perhaps someone who knows could explain.
But there would be no need to circumvent an elected upper house of the Parliament Act became meaningless.
If the Upper House has been democratically elected then there absolutely should be cases where they can overrule the House of Commons.
At the present time the House of Lords should have absolutely no right to overrule ANYTHING the House of Commons says because they are not democratically elected and they have no electoral mandate.
If the House of Lords was elected then I would have no problem with them preventing the House of Commons from doing certain things.
If (for example) Britain decides to participate in another illegal war (against Iran for example) and the government decides to participate in that illegal war, I would have no issue with the Upper House trying to stop this.
At the present time each and every decision made by the House of ‘Lords’ is suspect, because of the undemocratic nature of the house.
LMAO at dAVID’s anti monarchy posts. You must have spent most of 2012 avoiding the tv and media cause the Windsors had a busy year! Take it to the Guardian comments pages dAVID, they’ll appreciate your moans there.
I’m not moaning – I am merely expressing the opinion held by abour 33% of the population who want Britain to become a democracy
Some countries actualy regard us as a boring country because of the monarchy. Anti monarchy sentiment is particularly noticeable in America, historic of course. I remember once when I was in New York, sitting in my hotel room listening to t.v. coverage of the Queen’s state visit and meeting with the then second President George Bush. Some of the commentaries were very disparaging, some were scoffing, others were very respectful. They don’t understand why we continue tolerating the royal family, not that they know much about it other than the war against George III in 1776. To them it’s all about class structure for which we are notorious, not that there isn’t any in America of course. We’re more honest about it, they’re not.
If we are to keep the monarchy – and I support its abolition – then only Elizabeth; Charles and William should have any title. The rest of the royal leeches should receive zero state funding and be required to get a job.
The state cult should be disestablished
The House of Lords should be replaced in its entirety by an ELECTED upper house.
And no MP should have to swear allegiance to the monarch, By forcing MP’s to do this, it crushes very valid and reasonable republican sentiment.
Charles Windsor is not held in the same regard as his mother,
Why on earth should he be our head of state when it is only an accident of birth that puts him in that position.
The woman who works the till in my local Tescos could do just as good a job.
There goes that “cult” word again.
He throws it around like confetti
That’s exactly what it is.
Believing that some skyfairy invented the world in 6 days, 5000 years ago is the height of insanity.
Regardless of whether you believe we should be a monarchy or a republic (and my feelings are somewhat mixed), I would be very sorry to see action taken while the present Queen is alive.
However when she dies there absolutely must be a referendum on whether or not the monarchy is maintained.
Remember that the monarch is also the head of the homophobic state religion.
I know and accept all the reasons why the constitutional monarchy should be abolished but I would be sad to see them go. Tourists flock here, despite the weather and expense, for pageantry and history. The Queen is LIVING history and gives context to all the processions and garters and Silver Sticks and ermine and Black Rods. Very little of the fairy tale of British pageantry would survive a republic. The royal family have caché, like it or not, and generate more money for the economy than they use. Those that remain in the pay of the civil list work hard attending boring openings, unveiling plaques etc. Lisbon has grand palaces just as London does but they are dusty museums with no link to the families that were part of them. Empty and sad.
Pageantry and history are not valid reasons for not having a democratically elected head of state.,
France is a repubic yet the Palace of Versailles is one of the most popular tourist attractions in Europe.
We could keep all the pageantry nonsense like the changing of the guard, and open \Buckingham Palace to the public all year around which would massively increase tourist revenue.
Britain is no longer a world power or an empire. If Scotland leaves the UK (or becomes even more devolved) then the arguements for the abolition of the monarchy will become even stronger.
We do not need a monarchy. Monarchy is an anachronism in a country which wantrs to be seen as a democracy.
Oh good grief dAVID, must you use even a positive news item as an opportunity for yet another soapbox rant? You really can be the most miserable of sods!
I totally agree. It’s annoying to say the least.
Why is it good news that our unelected head of state is handing out party favours as if she has some right to do so?
I am not ranting by the way.
Republicanism is a very valid belief system and you need to get used to it. When Elizabeth Windsor dies (or if Scotland becomes independent) then you’ll be hearing a lot more of it.
The unelected head of state is only doing exactly what she is told to do by the elected government.
Congratulations to Michael Cashman. And what about a knighthood for Peter Tatchell, or a posthumous Knighthood for Alan Turing?
Peter Tatchell is a republican.
Republicans are never offered knighthoods because they would refuse them, thereby causing embarrassment to the monarchy.
And we can’t embarrass our unelected head of state (who is also the head of our homophobic state religion.)
Tatchell has the ego and vanity to wait at his letterbox in the hopes an honour does arrive, he would then ummm and aawww for ages publicly about turning down said honour just to keep his name in the headlines.
He will never be offered a knighthood.
He has publically expressed his oppostion to the monarchy; therefore he is automatically excluded from these honours.
Have you not noticed how rare it is for someone to turn these ‘honours’ down? That’s because only people who support the monarchy get offered them?
Danny Boyle has just turned down a knighthood, as have many people over the years, from T S Lowry to Benjamin Zephaniah.
Turning down an honour is more common than you think dAVID, there’s a plethora of accomplished people who’ve refused the nod. Tatchell’s ‘republican’ leanings might be the reason he’s not been considered in your head but a quick peruse of the internet will throw up plenty of names who refused an honour for a variety of reasons and not always political; modesty being one reason for many.
People turn down knighthoods for many reasons.
How many people can you name who have been offered knighthoods who are openly anti-monarchy?
Very, very few I would wager.
Why on earth would an honour purportedly coming from the monarch be offered to someone who’s avowedly anti-monarchy?
Great news but they really need a spell checker at PN. It’s getting worse than the old Grauniad.
Peter Tatchell has done more. CAshman must be the right type
Tatchell is a republican.
Britain has no means of honouring republicans, because in our so-called democracy republicans are treasonous.
I didn’t write that 1st sentence.
Congrats to Michael Cashman. An honour what is well deserved!!
Congratulations to Michael Cashman. First gay character on a BBC soap, first British tv gay kiss, helped form stonewall. Incredible man.
It’s not true though . Gordon Collins was out on Brookside before Colin Russell appeared on Eastenders….
+6 you ignorant bitches
Rob and Michael in Agony were first
Correction: Colin Russell wasn’t the first openly gay character in a British soap opera. Gordon Collins was out on Brookside long before Colin Russell appeared.
Having set up that bunch of chocolate teapots at Stonewall, he goes on to join the biggest bunch of money grabbing pen-pushers on the planet a.k.a The European Union.
And they say there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Now to top it all, he gets awarded for it.
What a joke.
So Michael Cashman is given a well earned award and with no thought at all dAVID turns its into a debate (led by his good self of course) on the Monarchy and wither it should stay or go. Typical! Would it be too much to ask that congratulations are offered to Mr Cashman, and leave it at that? (Awaiting your insulting reply)
Well of course I am,
The ‘queen’ is giving the award and she has no right to do so – she is the unelected head of state and the head of our homophobic state religion (which has 26 bishops sitting in the unelected House of ‘Lords’ promoting their homophobic agenda).
I would congratulate him if this award had any merit – the ‘queen’ being involved delegitimises the award.
Wonder if Nick Clegg has anything to say on this.
Charming, handsome, dignified pioneer, – well-deserved – swoon…..