Did the Queen Support Anti-Gay Church Group or Didn’t She?
The Queen's private secretary wrote letters of support to anti-gay Christian group
The Queen has written twice to the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans offering her support and wishing them success, according to the Daily Telegraph today.
The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) is a fundamentalist Christian group which has it in for gay priests and gay human rights big time!
The human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said:
“Many leading members of FCA believe the civil and criminal law should discriminate against gay people. They do not believe that we are entitled to equal rights.
That is why they opposed the gay law reforms of the last decade, including an equal age of consent, civil partnerships, protection against discrimination, the repeal of Section 28, fostering and adoption by same-sex couples, and access to fertility treatment for lesbian partners.”
It is unbelievable that our Queen, the head of the Church, should take sides so strongly in such a matter.
A palace spokesperson told the Mothership Blog however that it was the Queen’s private secretary, and not the Queen herself, who had written to the FCA. Whilst not free to comment further on such private correspondence, the impression given by the palace was that the views expressed were not necessarily those held by the Queen.
So we are left wondering! As usual we are left with fudge and innuendo!
Your Majesty, if you’re reading this, saturday’s Pride London showed there is a huge gay population in the UK, and massive support for gay people. Are you our Queen too? If so, please show it - and give that private secretary a right royal b**locking!
UPDATE 8 July 2009
Apparently the FCA have misconstrued the letters sent by the Queen’s private secretary, and which were sent a whole year apart. In fact the letter said the Queen
“understands the commitment to the Anglican Church that prompted you and your brethren to write as you did”
which of course is an entirely different thing. The letter sent a year later in response to an approach by FCA simply said a standard ‘good wishes to all concerned’
It appears words are being put into Her Majesty’s mouth.
Will the anti-gay lobby stop at nothing to spread their hateful poison?
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Related posts:
Help persuade Bishop Nazir-Ali to answer three questions
Tatchell calls on Bishop of Rochester to repent
Gay Glastonbury
Danny La Rue’s funeral
Does he like me?
Mothership Gay Dating finds Twitter’s unexpected bonus
July 15th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I firmly believe that the Queen is there for all of us, and it is clear that her apparent support for the FCA was more of a polite acknowledgement of its coming into being.
The Queen was brought up in a royal household manned by many gay staff and servants, who were selected as they posed no sexual threat to the young princesses. And the Queen Mother’s liking for gay theatrical performers like Noel Coward, and her well-known fondness for ever-loyal gay pages like the famous Backstairs Billy, are only too well-known.
As for the Queen’s role as Defender of the Faith, it may be remembered that Prince Charles caused controversy some years ago, by his suggestion that, as King, he would prefer to be seen as Defender of the Faiths, thus embracing the UK’s varied beliefs. We should give credit to the royals for such forward thinking, and realise they are much more accepting than the narrow-minded press would have us believe.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
These thank-you-and-wish-you-well letters are routine in all European Monarchies.
To construe it as “support” for one cause or another is misleading; FCA manipulated words written by a royal secretary to push their agenda. I don’t think the Rev’d Sudgen at FCA will be on the Queen’s honours list any time soon.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:22 am
?
Just because she is defender of the faith doesn’t mean she doesn’t represent other people like atheists and non-christians too - the defender of the faith role is an additional one, not the only one. At least that’s what i thought!
July 6th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
We shouldn’t even have a head of state who is also the head of a church.
If she is Defender of the Faith then she clearly doesn’t represent those british citizens who are atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, who oppose the religion she is ‘defending’. Similarly she cannot represent those british citizens who are members of a different religion to hers.
If she and her successors don’t get their act together and provide a secular head of state who can represent everyone then she should be kicked off the throne and we can then elect a president who can represent EVERYONE without granting favour to special sections of the electorate.