Another beef from Grania: UK ministers pray for Prince George to either be gay or straight

Grania says this about a new Guardian article: “Here’s a facepalm of the day. Hard to say which one of these fine religious leaders needs their head smacked hardest.” Here’s that article:

Prince George (of Cambridge), of course, is the only son of Prince William and Kate Middleton, now “Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge,” and he’s third in line for the throne after Prince Charles and Prince William. That, of course, makes him terribly important to those without a life who follow the royals.

But I sympathize with him because the Church of England is already on him like white on rice, with some praying he’ll be gay and others straight. WTF? Why don’t they leave him alone. As the Guardian reports:

Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay to force support for same-sex marriage in the Church of England, a senior Scottish Episcopal church minister and LGBTQ campaigner has said.

The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth, provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow, made the comments in a blog he reposted about LGBTQ inclusion in the Church of England following the announcement of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s engagement.

In the post, he writes that Christians should pray “for the Lord to bless Prince George with a love, when he grows up, of a fine young gentleman”.

But of course that won’t wash, because should George become king, there won’t be an heir. Not to mention that these idiots think that prayers have any influence on someone’s sexual proclivities, or that God should intervene to promote LGBT rights. But, of course, there are CoE ministers who are appalled:

A former chaplain to the Queen, the Rev Gavin Ashenden, has described the comments as “unkind” and “profoundly un-Christian”, and said the prayer was the “theological equivalent of the curse of the wicked fairy in one of the fairytales”.

Speaking to Christian Today, Ashenden said: “To pray for Prince George to grow up in that way, particularly when part of the expectation he will inherit is to produce a biological heir with a woman he loves, is to pray in a way that would disable and undermine his constitutional and personal role.

“It is an unkind and destabilising prayer. It is the theological equivalent of the curse of the wicked fairy in one of the fairytales. It is un-Christian as well as being anti-constitutional. It is a very long way from being a blessing for Prince George.”

These people have their own delusions: that the monarchy needs to persist and needs male heirs to do so. And of course Reverend Ashenden also thinks that prayer will have some effect on George’s sexual proclivities. Really, I thought that Anglican clerics were smarter than the thick-headed snake-handlers of the American South, but it doesn’t seem so.

43 Comments

  1. colnago80
    Posted December 1, 2017 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    The fact is that, even if George turned out to be gay, he could leave an heir via sperm donation and IVF. Thousands of gay men have children every year via this route.

    • DrBrydon
      Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:13 am | Permalink

      I am sure he wouldn’t be the first homosexual monarch.

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted December 2, 2017 at 7:33 am | Permalink

        I am sure he wouldn’t be the first homosexual monarch.

        Brief review of what I know of recent (last million years) British history … and I can think of at least two male monarchs who liked to rub mucosa with other males, to the (near) exclusion of rubbing with females.
        Oh, sorry, make that at least 4. I forgot the Roman monarchs. They were a lot more … ehemmm, receptive.

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted December 2, 2017 at 7:36 am | Permalink

      Two that I know personally managed it before sperm donation and IVF were a thing. Though one cheated by using the old “in and out”, because he wasn’t exclusive.

    • Posted December 2, 2017 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

      He almost certainly wouldn’t be the first gay King of Great Britain or England. In the past, a a rule, they simply did their “duty” to provide an heir. Until the 20th century, even the straight ones were rarely able to marry a person they loved.

  2. Ken Kukec
    Posted December 1, 2017 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    Chrissakes, leave kids outta politics.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted December 1, 2017 at 10:23 am | Permalink

      Apparently the Guardian will print just about any damn thing.

    • Craw
      Posted December 1, 2017 at 10:54 am | Permalink

      + some very damn large number

      Next time Dawkins slams religion for child abuse …

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:28 am | Permalink

        Oh, I think there’s a huge distinction between making a particular child a political issue and discussing the impact of ideology on children generally.

        But as to the former, I’ll call ’em out, Right or Left.

  3. Kevin
    Posted December 1, 2017 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Time to get rid of the monarchy?
    Time to get the C of E out of the House of Lords?
    Time to separate Church and State?
    Time to get rid of the aristocracy?
    Time to have an elected second house?

    Is the guillotine nice and sharp? (Goulish laughter)

    • Craw
      Posted December 1, 2017 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      Pray he grows up to be … a commoner.

  4. chris moffatt
    Posted December 1, 2017 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    “..that the monarchy needs to persist and needs male heirs to do so” is a misconception that was falsified in 1553 when Mary became queen sovereign. Again in 1558 when Elizabeth succeeded her. Sinc ethen there have been queens Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II. Going back further in History there were very nearly a queen Matilda and a queen Isabella too.

    As for the monarchy itself I never had a very high opinion of the institution or the “Windsors” but it’s been looking a lot better since the Reagan administration and subsequent DC disasters.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted December 1, 2017 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

      Also in Britain (since c. 35 years ago), the eldest child is the royal heir whether male or female. If William had an older sister, she would succeed before him. If George’s sister Charlotte was older than him, she would succeed before him. If the child Kate is now carrying is male, Charlotte will retain her place in the succession – her younger brother will not go ahead of her.

      In France when they had a monarchy, only a male could be the king. Women were barred from the crown.

      • Posted December 2, 2017 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

        Also in Britain (since c. 35 years ago), the eldest child is the royal heir whether male or female.

        Since 2013 actually.

      • Kevin
        Posted December 2, 2017 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

        When it was mooted 35 the idea of putting the female line of succession on parity with the male one, I discussed this with an Italian friend (female) who is also feminist and fairly left-wing.

        She thought that the existing sexist rule was against equality and that it was a good thing to change it.

        My view was that inheritance of such privilege was in any case anti-democratic and removing its also sexist bias was fudging the issue.

        • Kevin
          Posted December 2, 2017 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

          35= 35 years ago

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted December 2, 2017 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

          You have a point of course, but that is not a reason to leave it as it is.

          • Kevin
            Posted December 2, 2017 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

            It can also be seen as PR: many female supporters of the monarchy seem to like the Walt Disney, soap opera aspect of the institution, the nice dresses, the parades, the gossip and speculation, the scandals.

            Making the role open to females could be seen as a cynical attempt to pander to public opinion, particularly female, in a period in which the monarchy is increasingly under attack.

            British elitism is in any case a principally male-dominated one.

            Is a non-sexist, elitist institution better than a sexist, elitist institution?

            Leaving it as it was, might at least have been more coherent, instead of committing a sop to political correctness.

  5. chris moffatt
    Posted December 1, 2017 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    Oh and since 2013 the preference for males was abolished completely.

  6. Simon Hayward
    Posted December 1, 2017 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    While not being particularly pro-royal family, I do see some strengths to a non-elected head of state (perhaps due to the character of the present incumbent and compared to the elected imbecile that we have here. That perception could change in the future). But, for goodness sake, can’t these meddlesome priests just leave the kid alone. Personally, I hope he grows up to be a happy, rational, humanist atheist! There used to be a mechanism for dealing with clergy of this nature….

    • Kevin
      Posted December 1, 2017 at 10:41 am | Permalink

      Technically a humanist atheist can’t really become King since part of the role is to be the head of the Anglican Church. He could of course be both, but with a tang of cognitive dissonance!

      • Craw
        Posted December 1, 2017 at 10:52 am | Permalink

        The only constitutional bar is that he not owe allegiance to the head of another church (ie be Catholic).

        • Graham Head
          Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:03 am | Permalink

          I think the monarch has to be ‘in communion’ with the COE. IE a fully active member of the church.

          • gravelinspector-Aidan
            Posted December 2, 2017 at 7:38 am | Permalink

            Well, that doesn’t stop a good proportion of the bishops being functional – if “closeted” – atheists.

      • Simon Hayward
        Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:35 am | Permalink

        That’s true, there is the whole, anointed by god, holy oil, hocus pocus in the coronation ceremony. Mind you if you are king and don’t like the church there is precedent for just changing it out for something else 🙂

      • Posted December 2, 2017 at 5:36 am | Permalink

        This might be extremely naive but can’t he disband the church if he’s the head of it?

        • gravelinspector-Aidan
          Posted December 2, 2017 at 7:42 am | Permalink

          The monarch can say what s/he likes. It doesn’t have force of law unless it’s passed by Parliament.
          The last time I remember the matter being discussed, the estimate for Parliamentary time to pass the necessary bills to disentangle the Church and State was about 9 years.

    • DrBrydon
      Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:15 am | Permalink

      The comparison is inapt. Although the Queen is head of state, she does not control the executive in the way our President does. That would be the Prime Minister.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:34 am | Permalink

      Are you asking to be rid of these meddlesome priests? 🙂

      • Simon Hayward
        Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:36 am | Permalink

        Well, murder in the cathedral is a little dramatic, but that sort of thing did impose some discipline on them 🙂

  7. Posted December 1, 2017 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Since prayers definitely do not work, this is something we should urge upon these religious folks: pray, pray, and pray some more. This will keep them busy and away from doing effective things.

    • Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:27 am | Permalink

      But it can also have a reinforcing effect, and the more they pray and deal with this topic, the more activity arises from it.

  8. Graham Head
    Posted December 1, 2017 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    Well apart from anything else one would rather hope that it won’t take twenty odd years for the COE to be fully accepting of same sex relationships.

  9. Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    There will always be heirs to the throne, no matter whether any specific king has children or not.

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted December 2, 2017 at 7:48 am | Permalink

      60 odd (sometimes downright peculiar) million potential heirs in the UK alone.

  10. DrBrydon
    Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    I have to say that, as a parent, I would be hugely insulted if people were praying for one of my children to be anything other than healthy. Not your goddamn kid.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted December 3, 2017 at 2:51 am | Permalink

      My feelings exactly.

      It’s just some (probably gay) activist priest trying to get publicity for himself, IMO.

      cr

  11. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Well, Michele Bachmann has said you can “pray the gay away”
    (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-candidates-clinic/story?id=14048691)
    and so we now of CofE folk wanting to “pray the gay to stay”.

    This could be confusing.

    Yesterday,
    all my gay seemed so far away
    Now it seems my gay is here to stay
    I think I’ll drink a glass of chardonnay.

    • Jake Sevins
      Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:59 am | Permalink

      Holy cow. I came here to comment that instead of “pray the gay away” it should be “pray the gay to stay.” And you beat me to it with exactly the same words (while adding in some chardonnay).

  12. Craw
    Posted December 1, 2017 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    My beef: Linda Sarsour blaming “the Jewish controlled media”

    http://lidblog.com/linda-sarsour-blames-bad-image-jewish-controlled-media/

    I expect, considering our discussion of the white DNA thread to hear about how the Jews really do control the media attacking her …

  13. Frank Bath
    Posted December 1, 2017 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    I’ll reserve comment until George is on the throne.

  14. Posted December 1, 2017 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    And *how* are we supposed to be able to tell what’s satire these day?

  15. Stonyground
    Posted December 2, 2017 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    Just this once we in the UK can claim to have the nuttiest religious nuts. We used to have to rely on Stephen Birdshit Green, as Britain’s loopiest Christian to set the standard. Now the CofE is putting in a bid for his crown.


%d bloggers like this: