The Bishop of Willesden has issued a grovelling apology for "deeply offensive" Facebook comments about the forthcoming nuptials of Wills and Kate. The Rt Rev Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden, went right into one last Wednesday, apparently suffering from an overdose of royal wedding press euphoria which brought out a dark, …
I didn't know Willesden had a Bishop.
"Wills and Kate"
my GOD! he isnt' marrying JORDAN is he? or are we talking about some other royal?
Which is that overdone sarcasm icon again?
I didn't know there had been a royal engagement - surely it should have been mentioned in the papers?..
Does the man not know his history or something?
Or does he have some clever way of explaining why a republican should be a high-up member of a church separated from Rome by a monarch who wanted to move on to another receptacle for the royal sperm on the off chance a male child would be born?
Aside from that, I tend to agree with him about the nonsense surrounding the engagement -- and I'm not even a republican.
I was thinking along the same lines.
How, exactly, can an Anglican clergyman be a republican, given that the monarch is his boss? Surely, if he's not happy with that, then he should join a different denomination. Oh, and I am a republican, and a disestablishmentarian.
You're a disestablishmentarian?
So you are against antidisestablishmentarianism?
(first time I've used it without the phrase "is a very long word" being somewhere in the conversation)
about it being the first time you've you the word with out that phrase...
nope, you still haven't managed it.
You don't have to be a republican to find it all nauseating tosh.
Then again, the RtRev did at some point in becoming a Bish have to swear his allegiance to Her Maj and her successors. Did he cross his fingers for that bit?
Glad he retracted it otherwise I'd be in the truly weird position of agreeing wholeheartedly with a bishop...
Give that man a medal
...on the other hand, how he fails to see through that other nauseating tosh that provides him with a job is still unclear.
Has the Bish been to room 101?
That's quite a turnaround.
I'd have given him more respect if he'd told the tabloid press to get stuffed* and stuck to his original comments.
*Note use of Seasonal Expletive.
Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree
No, he just had a late night visit from the baby eating Bishop of Bath & Wells, who had some intimate theological advice for him.
Sounds to me like...
...he's just nobbed off someone's already bought the mug set off the John Lewis list.
All he needs to do now
is apologise for the perpetual brainwashing of the masses during Sunday Sermons and announce that
"It was unwise for me to continue recounting this tripe to so many, I accept that this was a major error of judgement on my part"
and he should then be good to go :D
/mines the one made from the shroud of turin
"Quite right too. Any other shouty republicans who consider the impending joyous royal wedding as "nauseating tosh" are strongly advised to button their lips and push off to France until it's all over."
A comment entirely worthy of the Daily Mail..... look it's 'The Register'.
Sadly, "over the water" (as per old Scots toast) they've been without royalty* for so long that the press tends to gush over everyone else's.
* Drama queens in the Elysée palace excepted.
An arm and a leg
Well, I'm not mornarchist, but I'm no religious believe either.
Now, I know the Palace suggest the cost of the royals is only about 60p each, which might well be higher if we also factor in policing, security etc, but at least the royals do, actually, genuinely and undoubtedly exist, so we know we get something for the money.
Churches in the country get a lot of subsidies from the state, and discounts on services as they get charity status. Also, we have a lot of bishops etc. in the House or Lords, who presumably don't come for free, and presumably have expense claims etc.
I would be interested to know the cost to the UK taxpayer of subsidising houses of worship, bishops expenses and other sky-fairy supporting paraphernalia etc. and comparing it with the cost of the royals.
That said, his comment about avoiding "the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll" was priceless.
I'm afraid you're wrong
> Churches in the country get a lot of subsidies from the state
Er, no. Unlike France and Germany, where local taxpayers contribute towards the running costs of their churches, parish churches don't receive any monies from the state.
If you buy a house in a village that happens to have a local church then there can be a covenant that compels you to pay into the upkeep of the church. Solicitor should check this during the contract stage.
In France there is only one region (Alsace) and one department (Moselle) that subsidize churches and their pastors. This are is called Alsace-Moselle, and it is a well-known exception to many rules that govern the rest of the territory.
Of course, it also happens to be the land closest to Germany and most often overrun and occupied by German forces.
There might be a link there, who knows ?
"If you buy a house in a village that happens to have a local church .."
I had such a house once, with a "parish tithe" covenant. It was a few pounds a year. The solicitor suggested that in the unlikely event that anyone came round to collect it, I should just pay it. Nobody ever did.
Hold on a sec...
"History: more broken marriages and philanderers among these people than not. Count them up, back through the ages. They cost us an arm and a leg."
Well, better a few broken marriages, than to be part of a way of life responsible for more deaths than anything else over the centuries.
To be honest, all this wedding bollocks is a bit nauseating, and I'm a royalist!
Religion respinsible for more deaths than ... blah, blah, blah
Greatest cause of human deaths - malaria. Greatest human generated slaughters - the world wars - not seeing a great role for religion in the causes here. But don't let actual facts get in the way of your anti-theist bigotry.
Are you saying the head of state for the British Empire has *not* been responcible for quite a few deaths?
As an aside, you are aware of the origin of the anglicin church, right?
I'm not certain but I do not think a disease can be responsible for anything but can certainly cause things. And I also question your usage of the word "bigotry" unless you were being ironic in some way.
Must be a real bugger comming in second but still getting all this stick.
True, it is responsible for more deaths overall, I was thinking more of human on human related deaths. For which religion IS responsible I believe, nothwithstanding your unproved assertion it's the WW's (which have, at least in some areas, a religious aspect. I'm thinking the Holocaust here as one example)
Not a bigot BTW, just don't think religion is a very good idea, but I am more than happy for people of whatever religion to practice as they see fit. (barring the murdering and torture of course).
"Greatest human generated slaughters - the world wars"
Among which should be numbered the 30 Years War, involving most European countries and resulting in the deaths of about a third of the population. Now what was that one about, again?
Whilst we are at it...
Whilst we are getting rid of the monarchy, could we disestablish the Church too please, and stop the state subsidising of religious propaganda by funding faith schools?
In Britain, the churches pretty much invented universal education. I like my local church school, it produces well educated, well adjusted young people - I'm happy to fund it via my taxes.
why is he on face book
why is he on face book and not on the GOOD book
hasn't he got a job to do like all good republican ?
and pay taxes like every one else?
What's the difference between Charlton Heston's gun and Kate Middleton's ring?
...both had to be removed from cold dead hands!
I jest of course, Di hadn't worn her ring for years!
Yes, giving a future wife jewellery from your dead, divorced mother is...
1. a sweet gesture that the queen of hearts would have approved of
2. in poor taste
3. a bad omen
4. the kind of creepy thing Norman Bates would do
5. the kind of tacky move a publicist would advise
(delete according to your tabloid royalist tenancies).
profit or loss
As one of the people on last weeks question time replied.
So the rumour mill has put the cost of their wedding at £50M (because the government will invite all their mates from all over the world to come). The tourism industry is saying that the wedding will bring in at least £1B.
So that looks like a profit to the country of £950M.
Personally I'm happy for the couple, at least he seems to be being allowed to marry who he wants. But I'd I'm not looking forward to the next 6>> months of news coverage will be largely filled with wedding trivia.
not the first time
daily mail readers have bashed the bishop...
I reckon Daily Mail readers should spend MORE time "bashing the bishop", then they might feel less uptight about all the current outrages du jour.
Value for money
There are two compelling reasons for having a monarchy. 1 by a long way is tourist income. If we were not so silly and anachronistic we would have far fewer tourist. 2 No president. Presidents are expensive and have an annoying habit of trying to do stuff. Long live the (delete as appropriate)
Don't bash the bishop!
They don't like it if they talk sense - still to the invisible friend nonsense.
You mean like the nonsense that comes out of the assorted churches of this world...?
They'd better hurry
My biggest concern for the porcelain doll's oldest idiot is that he gets the deed done as quickly as possible, before all his hair falls out. I swear, every time I see him he has less and less on top.
Here's to people who say what they think.
And as for all of you with a penchant for the easy scapegoat, by all means give 'religion' the stick it deserves, but I think you'll find, on sober reflection (or unsober if you must), that it's people that are actually the problem. The fact that 'religion' happens to make a handy justification for all sorts of bad behaviour doesn't remove the underlying problem. Take religion away and I think people would find, and do find, plenty of other justifications for being extremely, or just a little bit, unkind to each other. Religious faith at its best, however, has the power to bring out the best in plenty of people.
Pete Broadbent, and I have to confess to knowing him personally (some time ago, when he was but a lowly curate), was always forthright about what he thought. In this case he probably does seem to owe the happy couple an apology---at least for some of what he said; but I rather like the idea of him telling certain others to 'get stuffed', as a previous poster has suggested. As I remember him that's certainly more Pete's style.
As the old saying goes...
Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things, but it takes religion for good people to do bad things.
RE: As the old saying goes...
That's one of the shittest sayings I've ever heard. Clause #1 doesn't stand up to much scrutiny (plenty of people I consider "Good" have done "Bad" things, and my opinion on these values is entirely subjective anyway) so hardly worth reading further.
Title goes here
Obviously the guy suffered a momentary lapse of honesty. Bad thing for a Bishop's career. On the other hand he'd make a good candidate for the Raving Monster Loony Party, so things get balanced at the end.
How not to get ahead in the C of E...
...go off on one about the Supreme Governor's family (especially the Next-Supreme Governor) on the occasion of the Next-but-one-Supreme Governor getting engaged. Especially when you're an assistant bishop about due for a promotion to a diocese of your own. Truly beautiful career limiting move. Hence the grovelling apology.
In other (completely unrelated) news he lists "Real Ale" as one of his interests.
"button their lips and push off to France until it's all over."
I'm in France and I wish everybody would STFU. They've been dating for an eternity. They've become engaged. They're going to get married. I fail to see why this is hugely important in the world. Or, actually, at all.
What's up in New Zealand? Will Ireland crash&burn? WTF happened in Cambodia? Why does Cantona want to bring down the banks (isn't the world screwed up enough already)? Will China and Japan ever settle their differences? What am I going to go eat after clicking Submit?
All of those are questions that I feel are worthy of my attention. Kate'n'Wills doesn't factor into it, neither does "Queen Cammie" (sounds like a drag act).
Well done the Bishop for standing up and saying something sensible. Shame he bowed to pressure afterwards...
There is an expression for this
Goes something about a pot, a kettle, and the colour black I believe.
Just wait until the womens mags get fully up to speed...
Can it please be all over, now?
Speaking as a shouty republican...
is it all right if I sit it out here in Hong Kong, where I can vote for the head of state in free elections?
Umm, maybe I should think about this a bit more...