Peter Tatchell wades into HRH to day. I have to say, that I am not a natural monarchist. I tend to view our constitutional monarchy as a least worst option. So, not really a fan, although I do have a lot of time for the Queen as an individual.
Tatchell wants more from her, though.
On one issue, however, she remains curiously out of step with public opinion. Whereas most of us now welcome and embrace lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, the Queen has never done so
Really? Do we? Or do most of us simply accept that tolerance is a good thing and leave it at that? I am tolerant of people’s sexuality, race, lifestyle choices et al. I tend on the whole to just let it be. I certainly don’t “embrace” them and don’t plan to start. Why should the Queen be any different? We no longer persecute or prosecute homosexuals – and a jolly good thing that is, too. I fail, however, to see why we should all be forced to embrace or celebrate homosexuality and I will be damned if I am going to start.
Her Maj has said nothing – what one might call a dignified silence – and that seems just fine to me.
While I doubt that Elizabeth II is a raging homophobe, she certainly doesn’t appear to gay-friendly. Not once in her 60-year reign has she publicly acknowledged the existence of the LGBT community – or gay members of her own royal family.
To which the obvious retorts are: why should she and are there any? If there are, do we want or even need to know (or care)? And why should she publicly discuss a matter that is private – even allowing for her public role? Again, I am not interested and I suspect that most of the population feel similarly. Homosexuals are not special and it is about time they realised this
Judging from her silence, it seems that we are the unspeakable ones – the people she cannot bare to acknowledge or mention in public. Why the double standards?
There’s more of this crap. Basically, Tatchell is making an assumption from her silence. This is a particularly insidious thing to do. If someone says nothing, then you can assume nothing from it – either positive or negative because you have no evidence upon which to base a decision. That hasn’t stopped Tatchell from doing so, though, in a rather nasty demolition piece. The Queen has said nothing regarding gay Britons because, frankly, there is nothing to be said. Unless, of course you are a professional offence seeker…
Now is the time for all those other special interest minority groups to step up and take offence because her Maj hasn’t specifically mentioned them.
What’s he moaning about? It’s not like she vetoed Elton John’s knighthood.
Good point. He’s moaning because he is a professional attention seeker.
She hasn’t said a word in condemnation of minimum alcohol pricing, the fascist! 😉
If Tatchell thinks that the most significant thing about a human being is their sexual orientation rather the myriad other things they also are, how sad does that make Tatchell? He never got over being fucked by Simon Hughes in a long ago election contest, Hughes also being gay but lied about it and vilified Tatchell. Humph, politics eh?
Her Maj is magnificently above all that. Do we have any idea which of her ten Prime Ministers she actually liked, or even slightly agreed with? No. Good for her!
XX Judging from her silence, it seems that we are the unspeakable ones – the people she cannot bare to acknowledge or mention in public. Why the double standards? XX
!!! WHA??!! Fuck ME! I like playing chess. She has never, NEVER said people should not be nasty to chess players.
She must REALLY hate us!!
But then, I thought this “equality” shite, had all to do with accepting various hobbys, such as Chess, stamp collecting, and Church goers, as normal members of society, that should not be treated differently.
So WHY does this persitant pederast insist on preaching that we should treat them differently by openly acknowledging they exist?
But then, I am banging my head against twenty tons of pink frilly lace here, and preaching to the converted.
With Tatchell it’s always about Tatchell though isn’t it.
One thing that bemuses me is that he pompously claims the seat for promoting gay rights, and yet I have one gay friend who has told me that he would personally beat the crap out of Tatchell if given the chance, such is the bad name that my friend thinks Tatchell brings upon the gay movement.
It’s ignorance I suppose.
For those of us with a memory: “1982 July 19 – William Whitelaw, Home Secretary, announces that Michael Trestrail (the Queen’s bodyguard) has resigned from the Metropolitan Police Service over a relationship with a male prostitute.”
Commander Trestrail had been the Queen’s body guard for 16 years – does anyone really imagine she did not know of his sexual orientation?
Those “who know” will tell you a significant proportion of Buckingham Palace staff are Gay.
This is so without the Queen”s approval or she is unaware? Do me a favour.
That’s the thing with these gayers, it isn’t about equality at all. It’s privelege they are after. They choose to be different and want to be treated as equals in society. Yet when they are treated the same as everyone else in society, they bitch about that as well.