Your comment about the 1967 Abortion Act shows a misunderstanding of the Queen’s constitutional position. She had no choice but to give her Assent to the 1967 Act, or to any other Act. The fact that she did so says nothing at all about what she may have felt or said about it using the constitutional means available to her.
I think you overestimate the freedom of action, including freedom of public speech, available to the Head of State. In many respects she has less freedom of action than an ordinary British citizen.
” She had no choice but to give her Assent to the 1967 Act, or to any other Act.”
That, of course, is false. She could have simply said no. Then what would happen? Perhaps a constitutional crisis but one which would not have effected the lives of a single British subject in any major way and it would have been for the good if it had. She, however, refused to take a stand or even to protest. She signed it willingly. She chose her crown over opposing abortion. That was her choice.
Think back: For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? (Mark 8:36).
” I think you overestimate the freedom of action, including freedom of public speech, available to the Head of State.”
I overestimate NOTHING. She should have refused. She chose abortion. She could have refused. Whatever resulted she could have easily endured with or without a crown. In the end, she showed she had no personal morals or principles. She simply did the bidding of evil without even the most feeble of protests. She is a pathetic creature.
What would people be saying if the 1967 law were about re-instituting slavery? The parliament passes a law which would immediately put every black person in the U.K. in chains and Elizabeth signs it. Would a single right thinking person in this world be saying: “She had no choice but to give her Assent to the 1967 Act, or to any other Act”? You and I both know the answer to that is “Hell no!” But we always make excuses for abortion don’t we? “Oh, she personally might oppose abortion, but convention means she has to approve a law that allows it.” If the convention is GROSSLY IMMORAL she CAN’T support it even if it means losing her crown if she’s a Christian.
“In many respects she has less freedom of action than an ordinary British citizen.”
There is nothing in British law that can compel her to sign something she morally opposes. Yes, she might be forced off the throne (although I doubt it) but that would be better than agreeing with abortion.
Keep making excuses. Keep saying she should agree with Mammon rather than lose her crown. Keep saying whatever salves your conscience and hers despite the uselessness of such excuses before the throne of God at the end of time.
Other monarchs have managed with similar laws have managed to avoid giving assent (Leopold of Belgium, Alois of Lichtenstein). (I’ll confess I didn’t realize Vladimir merely meant Royal Assent.)
But if Winniesboy is merely insisting that the Queen is merely a useless, cowardly Christian, but not actively oppose to Christian morals, consider the fact that the Queen gave the former head of Planned Parenthood International the rare and high honor of being named “Commander of the British Empire.” That should utterly put to rest any notion that the Queen was merely avoiding expressing an opinion out of a tragically misguided sense of deference to the mechanisms of democracy.
Her husband joked as he opened an abortion clinic, “We need to ‘cull’ the surplus population. In the event I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
If you aren’t horrified by such a joke, Winniesboy, you’ve utterly lost the ability to be outraged.