Comments: FCA: full texts of letters

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.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 4:09pm BST

How anyone could misconstrue these letters as support is beyond me.

I notice that comments are closed at AM.

Posted by susan hedges at Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 4:30pm BST

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.

Posted by Tim at Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 4:49pm BST

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 should misconstrue the meaning?

Posted by EmilyH at Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 5:18pm BST

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).

Posted by Rev L Roberts at Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 5:33pm BST

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....

Posted by Ed Tomlinson at Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 6:19pm BST

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.

Posted by David Keen at Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 6:40pm BST

Straightforward English politeness and protocol - the Queen simply doesn't take public 'sides' in this sort of affair

Posted by Merseymike at Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 6:55pm BST

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.

Posted by William at Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 8:56pm BST

Incredible when one thinks that the Queen signed the legalisation of homosexuality and civil partnerships into Law.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 8:56pm BST

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.

Posted by Merseymike at Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:55pm BST

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.

Posted by Spirit of Vatican II at Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 8:26am BST

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.

Posted by Spirit of Vatican II at Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 8:29am BST

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 CofI, then they should also write to the President of Ireland? Or do this lot only worry about one kind of neo-colonialism?

Dion

Posted by Dion at Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 8:57am BST

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.

Posted by Jay Vos at Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 9:43am BST

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.

Posted by Christopher Shell at Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 12:10pm BST

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.

Posted by Bob Webster at Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 8:45pm BST

The gays are not just the servants!

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 9:13pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.