Posted on 03/08/2016 11:10:03 AM PST by jcbjrmll
The Queen did not approve of the legalisation of same-sex marriage, the Daily Mail can reveal today.
While in favour of civil partnerships, as a woman of deep Christian faith she took a different view on the legislation allowing same-sex couples to ‘marry’.
She expressed her frustration to a friend at the height of the controversy, but admitted she was powerless to intervene, saying: ‘I can only advise and warn.’
The friend said: ‘It was the “marriage” thing that she thought was wrong, because marriage ought to be sacrosanct between a man and a woman.’
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Wonder what her private thoughts were when she was tap, tap, tapping around his shoulders with that real sword....lol.
Leni
Keep denying that her reserve powers exist, then.
She’s playing moral equivalency here with the issue. Like I said in the past, she favors it over her duty to God. And with all due respect, you’re showing a lack of faith in God yourself.
The reserve powers to which you refer whenever this topic is raised are not as you believe them to be. If, as this necessarily uncorroborated article claims, the Queen exercised her constitutional power to advise and to warn, then she was doing all that her duty allows her to do.
Since you cannot possibly know the nature, force, severity and extent of that advice and those warnings, or to whom they were given, you are, with respect, in no position to accuse her of moral equivalency.
No; there is the matter of refusal of assent. Those who fear the left (which means they don’t fear God) claim that will automatically lead to a constitutional crisis. But the responsibility for keeping a church undefiled should prevail here instead.
Regardless of that, the queen is double-minded on the matter. Here it is being claimed that she is against the actual act of marriage but is for civil unions. However, elsewhere she is recorded as describing her act of signing royal asset to gay marriage as “wonderful”.
You are choosing to judge the Queen’s character on the basis of a few uncorroborated hearsay remarks, from such dubiously reliable sources as Stephen Fry? Hardly the soundest basis for such a judgement on anybody, I’d suggest. As for the niceties of the British constitution, you are of course free to interpret them as you choose: but I have to say that you would be hard put to find any recognised authority on the subject who would agree with you.
I don’t see the queen or any other royal sources refuting Fry or accusing him of misquoting; those who ought to stand up first to defend the queen’s character are silent. Clearly Fry has one prejudiced and extremely narrow point of view on the matter, but he hasn’t been taken to task with respect to slandering the queen in that respect.
It is still fact that royal assent was given, and it is still fact that to do so is fighting against God when one is supposed to be head of a church that presumes to stand for Him and His name.
We mean it, man!
May God bless her abundantly.
Oh dear...you really think it would be feasible, or anything other than counter-productive, for the royal family (or indeed any other prominent public figure) to refute every piece of hearsay tittle-tattle about them which appears in the media? Of course it isn’t. The only proper response to such things is silence. And in making so much of the the royal assent, you again illustrate your misinterpretation of the constitutional position. Although you continue to deny this, the fact is that she had, unfortunately, no choice in the matter.
I’m not the one denying that there was indeed a choice to refuse assent. Why do you continuously portray the liberals as an indomitable force that must be yielded to at every turn, especially at the expense of civil society and at the expense of the church?
Furthermore, if something uttered about the queen happens to be a lie, the proper response is legal force and not silence, because silence turns it into the seeming truth.
Thanks jcbjrmll.
A rather bizarre non sequitur, if I may say so, from anything I've said.
Furthermore, if something uttered about the queen happens to be a lie, the proper response is legal force and not silence, because silence turns it into the seeming truth.
If that were to be the case, then the Queen (and indeed any other prominent public figure) would need to employ a whole army of PR hacks to deny daily gossip. Not only would this be counter-productive, in the end it would be bound to fail, since the moment you miss something and fail to deny it it would universally be assumed to be true. In any case, it would completely undermine the constitutional status of the advice the Queen gives to her ministers: the essence of which is that it's private and confidential. The moment you breach that confidentiality by confirming or denying, that status is lost.
Right, British society is being destroyed even by the Tories and you call the matter of the monarch standing up and using reserve powers for the sake of standing against it a “nonsequitur”. Is the BBC this good at brainwashing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.