I’m glad at least one organization is maintaining some decorum and not getting itself drawn into a crass power-grabbing attempt by a bunch of rebels.
EmilyH
15 years ago
But of course the posting was after-the-fact. Media coverage, what little there was or continues to be of this event will be lacking. Will Ruth Gledhill post the actual statements? Maybe the Telegraph? I would assume that the “correction” will be totally absent or buried on the conservative Anglican sites. What was important was to mislead while there was press coverage, to look like something more than you are. It has been a successful tactic for ACNA, very successful. It’s not exactly “lying” is it…I mean, the words were there weren’t they? What responsibility does Chris Sugden bear if people… Read more »
Rev L Roberts
15 years ago
She does write a lovely, sincere letter though; and the photograph of her on AM is lovely.
She does work a charm doesnt she. Even my auntie Annie who was fiercely ” Welsh Nash”, in the days before Plaid Genedlaethol got going, had a soft spot for the Queen. Is it something about us single ladies. (Probably not).
To try and demonstrate that the queen’s words were stretched looks a little desperate guys….so what?! Either way something significant took place that is symptomatic of the genuine problems in our church, could you not be seeking ways to reconcile the differences rather than put all your energy into making opponents look silly? Just a thought
After all something must have pushed the conservatives of the Church to take such drastic action….
David Keen
15 years ago
I think it was a bit silly of FCA to quote the Queen as supporting them, and having to reveal the letters shows that they’re routine offers of goodwill. Ironically, it actually undermines FCA that they need to line up the monarch in their own support – it suggests that they’re not sufficiently convinced that their arguments stand on their own merits. It’s a bit of a shot in the foot.
But at least they wrote to her as supreme governor, which was a nice courtesy.
Merseymike
15 years ago
Straightforward English politeness and protocol – the Queen simply doesn’t take public ‘sides’ in this sort of affair
William
15 years ago
One might even read the reminder that the Queen does not intervene in the day-to-day affairs of the Church of England and the thanks for the continuing “loyalty” of the correspondents as mild admonition. But, on the whole, this appears to be merely an exchange of niceties into which very little at all should be read.
Robert Ian Williams
15 years ago
Incredible when one thinks that the Queen signed the legalisation of homosexuality and civil partnerships into Law.
Merseymike
15 years ago
Of course she did, Robert, because she signs into law what the Government and Parliament decide.
I really don’t think the Royals have any problem with gay people, in any case. It is well known that many of the Palace staff are gay.
Spirit of Vatican II
15 years ago
The Queen doesn’t take sides, but the correspondence clearly shows that she considers the Archbishop of Canterbury the supreme authority in such matters, and it gently hints that the FCA people should not do anything that could be construed as bypassing his authority.
Spirit of Vatican II
15 years ago
Answering their first letter long months after its arrival the secretary said: “I should explain however that the Queen, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would not intervene in the day-to-day running of the Church of England. *Although you have already sent a copy of your letter to him, I have, nevertheless, been directed to forward your letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury so that he may be aware of your approach to Her Majesty from this office.*”
There is an undertone of reproach in that second sentence.
Dion
15 years ago
I am intrigued by the “five provinces” reference. Are they getting slightly ahead of themselves? If it is “five provinces” in the sense of autonomous churches as per Anglican Communion usage then surely it is four (England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales); if it is provinces in the sense of Canterbury and York inside the CofE, then it should be Armagh and Dublin inside the CofI. Or is it all complicated by the Chanel Islands or Gibraltar-in-Europe or something? And did Harold our Bishop remind them that if they are writing to Queen Elizabeth II about matters to do with the… Read more »
Jay Vos
15 years ago
Göran’s got it right. Back in the 1970s, prior to my parish’s 50th anniversary celebrations, an invitation was sent to HM and the the ABC. Their secretaries sent regrets and best wishes, but that didn’t mean they supported the parish’s public welcoming of LBGTs into active ministry, either!
Way overblown, but I have to laugh (unintentional humour) at people’s ignorance and gullibility.
Christopher Shell
15 years ago
Any organisation that writes notifying the queen of an upcoming event is going to receive [the formality of] support and encouragement anyway.
So far as I can see, the press (Telegraph), more than the clerics, was responsible for portraying this as something more than formal support.
Susan Hedges: so far as I know AM’s comments on everything are always closed. There is nothing special about this instance.
Bob Webster
15 years ago
I too would be able to wish them a successful and memorable event. That does not say in any way what I would consider successful and memorable.
As I have pointed out, 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.
How anyone could misconstrue these letters as support is beyond me.
I notice that comments are closed at AM.
I’m glad at least one organization is maintaining some decorum and not getting itself drawn into a crass power-grabbing attempt by a bunch of rebels.
But of course the posting was after-the-fact. Media coverage, what little there was or continues to be of this event will be lacking. Will Ruth Gledhill post the actual statements? Maybe the Telegraph? I would assume that the “correction” will be totally absent or buried on the conservative Anglican sites. What was important was to mislead while there was press coverage, to look like something more than you are. It has been a successful tactic for ACNA, very successful. It’s not exactly “lying” is it…I mean, the words were there weren’t they? What responsibility does Chris Sugden bear if people… Read more »
She does write a lovely, sincere letter though; and the photograph of her on AM is lovely.
She does work a charm doesnt she. Even my auntie Annie who was fiercely ” Welsh Nash”, in the days before Plaid Genedlaethol got going, had a soft spot for the Queen. Is it something about us single ladies. (Probably not).
To try and demonstrate that the queen’s words were stretched looks a little desperate guys….so what?! Either way something significant took place that is symptomatic of the genuine problems in our church, could you not be seeking ways to reconcile the differences rather than put all your energy into making opponents look silly? Just a thought
After all something must have pushed the conservatives of the Church to take such drastic action….
I think it was a bit silly of FCA to quote the Queen as supporting them, and having to reveal the letters shows that they’re routine offers of goodwill. Ironically, it actually undermines FCA that they need to line up the monarch in their own support – it suggests that they’re not sufficiently convinced that their arguments stand on their own merits. It’s a bit of a shot in the foot.
But at least they wrote to her as supreme governor, which was a nice courtesy.
Straightforward English politeness and protocol – the Queen simply doesn’t take public ‘sides’ in this sort of affair
One might even read the reminder that the Queen does not intervene in the day-to-day affairs of the Church of England and the thanks for the continuing “loyalty” of the correspondents as mild admonition. But, on the whole, this appears to be merely an exchange of niceties into which very little at all should be read.
Incredible when one thinks that the Queen signed the legalisation of homosexuality and civil partnerships into Law.
Of course she did, Robert, because she signs into law what the Government and Parliament decide.
I really don’t think the Royals have any problem with gay people, in any case. It is well known that many of the Palace staff are gay.
The Queen doesn’t take sides, but the correspondence clearly shows that she considers the Archbishop of Canterbury the supreme authority in such matters, and it gently hints that the FCA people should not do anything that could be construed as bypassing his authority.
Answering their first letter long months after its arrival the secretary said: “I should explain however that the Queen, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would not intervene in the day-to-day running of the Church of England. *Although you have already sent a copy of your letter to him, I have, nevertheless, been directed to forward your letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury so that he may be aware of your approach to Her Majesty from this office.*”
There is an undertone of reproach in that second sentence.
I am intrigued by the “five provinces” reference. Are they getting slightly ahead of themselves? If it is “five provinces” in the sense of autonomous churches as per Anglican Communion usage then surely it is four (England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales); if it is provinces in the sense of Canterbury and York inside the CofE, then it should be Armagh and Dublin inside the CofI. Or is it all complicated by the Chanel Islands or Gibraltar-in-Europe or something? And did Harold our Bishop remind them that if they are writing to Queen Elizabeth II about matters to do with the… Read more »
Göran’s got it right. Back in the 1970s, prior to my parish’s 50th anniversary celebrations, an invitation was sent to HM and the the ABC. Their secretaries sent regrets and best wishes, but that didn’t mean they supported the parish’s public welcoming of LBGTs into active ministry, either!
Way overblown, but I have to laugh (unintentional humour) at people’s ignorance and gullibility.
Any organisation that writes notifying the queen of an upcoming event is going to receive [the formality of] support and encouragement anyway.
So far as I can see, the press (Telegraph), more than the clerics, was responsible for portraying this as something more than formal support.
Susan Hedges: so far as I know AM’s comments on everything are always closed. There is nothing special about this instance.
I too would be able to wish them a successful and memorable event. That does not say in any way what I would consider successful and memorable.
The gays are not just the servants!