The Bishop of Willesden has been suspended over Facebook comments regarding the forthcoming wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. The Rt Rev Pete Broadbent laid into the "nauseating tosh" generated by the royal event of the century, and suggested he and fellow republicans would do well to dodge the hysteria by pushing …
People need to realise that if you put it online it's not just semi public, its completely public and it's completely permanent. You'd be better off ranting down a phone line to the local rag at least that way they won't have proof.
What did he expect
The his church only exists because of the crown. Furthermore the supreme boss of the church just happens to be the monarch. And he really thought is was a good idea to mouth off like that?
I do love the irony...
A republican priest in a church whose supreme leader is also the head of a monarchy... Am i the only one that finds the irony delicious?
Lets's be hoonest the monarch is only the boss because Henry VIII couldn't keep flies zipped.
The C of E, just the Judean People's Front with pointy hats on.
It's almost as ironic as a Bishop complaining about how much the greedy b*stard monarchy has cost "us" down the ages.
He'll be moaning about Pagans celebrating Easter next...
Technically, I think the *supreme* boss of the Church is the beardy guy upstairs. #justsaying
We pay all those taxes...
...and they get married on a Friday. Only cheapskates get married during the week...
They really are cheapskates
- 'cos they won't be paying for it! Leave that to us poor "subjects".
Not much point having a day off on Saturday, is there?
Weddings can be on any day
And if it was at the weekend we wouldn't get the extra holiday, would we ?
You have to remember she's trade. Trade people traditionally get married on half day closing. Certainly not saturday when they could be making money. Is friday half day closing in Westminster?
BTW the taxpayer is only paying for the "security". Given the amount of security that plod put into into the student demos I don't suppose the bill will be more than about £13.49.
Rule one of Public Office
NEVER speak the truth
True, but, is somebody who works for an organisation whose purpose is dishing out supersticious drivel about sky-fairies actually "in public office"?
I know church and state are not as separate in this country as some (myself included) might like, but I still don't see bishops and the like as being in public office, just professional, discredited bullshit-purveyors.
Good point, but I couldn't think of another description to cover his position. Though Discredited Bullshit-Purveyors would seem to cover most of the people I was thinking of... Clergy, Politicians etc
"dishing out supersticious drivel about sky-fairies"
Regardless of your beliefs (or lack thereof), that was a pretty rude, insensitive and offensive remark.
the truth can hurt
Rude, insensitive, and offensive? Perhaps to those who believe in superstitious drivel about sky-fairies. However, calling belief in mumbo-jumbo just that is a small action in favour of general good, that is, in favour of humankind being gradually weaned from officially sanctioned superstition, which is what religions are, after all.
You can feel offended all you like; fortunately we have advanced far enough that you offence is no longer a sufficient basis for prosecution or for other sanctions.
God botherer talking sense shock
Although if the guy you are complaining about is going to be your boss - you might not want to do it on twitter.
Not July 14th then.
There's a shame.
this guy is my hero... no more bloodline rule i say!
Oh, do get a grip. Bloodline rule, indeed. You do know we haven't had bloodline rule in this country for a good couple of centuries now, right? You do know the Queen doesn't actually run the show any more, right?
At best, the monarchy represents a link to some of the heritage and traditions that other nations still respect about Britain. They serve as excellent and moderately apolitical ambassadors to other nations, and as a living link to our history (so to speak) they generate quite a chunk of tourism revenue. Compared to that, their cost is fairly reasonable.
That's a pretty pro position. But even putting that debatable benefit aside, there are a lot of things about Britain I'd be looking to fix before I worried about recouping the fairly minimal costs involved in maintaining the monarchy. Politically speaking, they're no concern at all: they don't rule in any real sense. Personally I'd be far more concerned about the small crowd of privileged oligarchs that we get to choose between in our 'democracy'. They're a far more real-world problem than a small group of completely disenfranchised ceremonial figureheads.
Err, can't really say we've ever truley had a bloodline monarchy.
Only in a Matriarchal Monarchy where the throne follows the female line can you be sure it is a blood line. After all, the only guarantee on the parent of the heir is the mother.
" Personally I'd be far more concerned about the small crowd of privileged oligarchs that we get to choose between in our 'democracy'."
At least we get to choose a lizard, in order to stop the wrong lizard getting in. A much bigger concern is the house of lords who effectively have power of veto over what the elected house decides. Noticed how every successive government attempts to stuff the lords with it's own people in order to prevent the next government doing anything?
Even worse of course is the way a government can make a failled MP a lord in order to give them a position of power within the cabinet.
The house of lords is something that does need to be dealt with much more urgently than the monarchy.
The PM can appoint *anyone* to the Cabinet. MP, Lord, completely unelected Oligarch.
Even a Prol like most of us here.
@ Grease Monkey
"The house of lords is something that does need to be dealt with much more urgently than the monarchy."
I agree. The House of Lords needs to be tackled to make sure that the selected people sitting in it are not subject to political interference or excessive influence, so that they can carry on their exceptionally important job of making sure that party politics don't unduly damage the interests of the country.
The idea of abolishing it would, I think, be somewhat dangerous. A parliament made up solely of those seeking personal political advantage - and over such potentially short terms - would be a parliament incapable of looking at the long-term interests of the nation.
Worl, not actually...
the interesting thing is that it's not that clear-cut.
Consider: if the recent election hadn't been considered to be fairly definitively a 'win' for lib-con and a 'loss' for labour, and the parties reached a consensus that labour would step down and allow lib-con to form a coalition government...imagine, instead, both lib-con and labour claim the right to form a government...who gets to pick?
That would be the Queen. That's the case both in law and practice: there's simply no other mechanism to decide. The electoral process determines the composition of the House of Commons but it does *not* decide who gets to form a government; in theory the Queen can ask whoever she damn well pleases to form a government, in practice there are precedents (aren't there always!) and tradition to follow for the most common case (whoever gets a majority gets to do it), but there is no clear common procedure for the case of no party getting a majority. The parties usually organize something among themselves to save face, but if they couldn't, the only person who would get to tell them what to do is the Queen.
It's hardly a weird theoretical case, either - it could have happened in not one but *two* countries in the most recent elections; the UK and also Canada, where there was for a while the prospect of the Liberals and the NDP claiming the right to form a coalition government while the Conservatives denied that they had the right. This was a serious plan on the part of the Liberals and the NDP and the Conservatives were adamant in their opposition. If various political maneuverings hadn't led to the eventual dropping of the coalition plan, it would have been up to the Governor-General of Canada - the direct personal representative of the Queen - to decide which side would be allowed to form the government.
So, yeah, when you improvise a representational form of government out of a monarchy without ever actually bothering to write it down and make it legal, you do get some pretty odd corner cases.
Can't people tell the truth any more?
What's he being suspended for? Pissing off his boss' mate? Is the whole country supposed to show their undying love for the people or get in trouble?
If I were him I'd stick to my guns. You could respect that.
He's being suspended because his musings were thoroughly un-Christian.
Re: "What's he being suspended for?"
Damage limitation would be my guess. Calling the boss' deceased daughter-in-law a porcelain doll on a not-even-remotely-"semi"-public internet forum is a pretty good clue that he is a complete idiot. That being the case, the best course of action for his employer is to reduce the chances of it happening again.
He has every right to hold these views and to express them in public, but he doesn't have a *right* to be a bishop any more than I have.
I thought it was rather a magnificent rant. An Alan Partridge breakdown-style rant but magnificent all the same.
What a pillock
Suspension entirely deserved.
Republican views? Fine.
Expression of Republican views? Also fine, even if poorly timed.
But childish name-calling - especially of the dead - really doesn't become one whose job/office is supposed to maintain at least a shred of dignity.
Suspension not entirely deserved
Why was he suspended? What did he do that makes it reasonable to suspend him? Bring the royal family into disrepute? That implies that they had a reputation to bring into disrepute, and I think Harry the Nazi et al got rid of that all on their own.
Bash the bishop...
for telling it like it is!
Bashed Bishop not knob jockey
Yup, the bishop is getting bashed for sticking his head out.
But it is true -- those bashing the bishop are indeed wankers.
Seven years from now
He'll be saying "I told you so, but you wouldn't listen!".
Why during these lean times
Cant they be done with a knees up at the local after the registry office
And i bet it's us, the taxpayer, not her dad that's footing the shindig bill
Aside, I wish them best of luck once the press hound the hind legs of anyone who ever knew her, see how many take the cash and tell, the truth doesnt matter, it's the paper selling that counts
You can't handle the truth.
First Bishop I've ever heard tell the truth!
At a dig at the site of the old Tower of London, some human remains were found, further examination revealed that the person was formerly a Bishop of Willesden, the exclusive west London borough, home of the rich and famous.
"Despite several searches with the tachyon geofizz, we have still not been able to locate the site of Willesden Cathedral."
The Rev sounded pretty reasonable to me.
Is there some new form of EARist discrimination that has passed me by, which makes his comments deeply offensive!
The Rev does have a point about the hereditary principle being "corrupt and sexist".
I find it strange, that there is in the modern world, a populist desire to retain the status of Royal families and pass them authoritarian power unquestioned. Especially, in a world where science proves, that we are all pretty much genetically homogeneous and no less capable in our shared 200,000 - 50,000 years of human evolution.
Who knows, BIG EARS may be the first steps to some superior hybrid. That later proves all us Republicans, wrong!
"According to the Telegraph, Chartres said in a statement: "I was appalled by the Bishop of Willesden’s comments about the forthcoming royal marriage. In common with most of the country I share the joy which the news of the engagement has brought."
Chartres should shut his mouth, and stop lying. I bet 90% of the country couldn't give a flying fuck about the wedding, and most of the rest are pissed off that once again we have to pay for some posh bloke to throw a party.
The fact that some jumped-up tossbag wants to get married brings me not one jot of joy; in fact, in means that I have to listen to nauseating tosh on the TV for the next five months.
Compassion? Human beings?
The bish is supposed to do compassion and at the end of the day it is - underneath the pomp and circumstance - two human beings getting married . So he deserves to get kicked into touch by his boss for hurting two people who can't fight back.
As to the politics and the cost - if we didn't have a monarchy we'd have some politician president instead and I guess he wouldn't be able to sell the telly rights of his kid's wedding for a right royal arm and a leg.
What a prat
For backing down, I mean. Once you're that deep in it, you might as well keep digging and see if you can find a new career at the bottom of the hole.
I bet the Gruaniad would mess themselves at the prospect of having a recanted bishop spewing forth another champagne socialist rant column.
and philandering? Certainly subjects Bishops are usually well qualified to speak on. Not sure Calais is a good choice, though. French revolutionaries had as little time for the church as they did for the nobility.
"In common with most of the country I share the joy which the news of the engagement has brought."
I hope the Bis of London can substantiate that remark, things have changed a bit since Brian's first marriage to the Porcelain Doll.
Good for him!
Unlike everyone else, he spoke his mind and good for him.
I don't have a problem with them or their wedding, what I have a problem with is all the sycophantic press twats, fawning overthemselves to bring us 24/7 coverage of the build up for the next f**king 8 months!!!
... after all, there is nothing else going on in the world. Yesterday, for instance: North Korea initiating military action on South Korea and Ireland putting the Euro in jeopardy with direct effects on the UK. However, at least a third of all news in the UK was about Westminster Abbey being the venue for just another wedding! Shed-loads of talking heads warbling on about how wonderful it is, statistics about how many royal occasions it has been used for, how it is more "intimate" (than what didn't seem to be said, but I wasn't paying attention). Utter, utter bollocks, but it does give the government so many opportunities to sneak in unpopular measures under the radar ...
monarchy, church and state etc.
Of course keeping a monarchy when we are all republicans at heart is a soap opera and a mess. A majority of Australians even agreed it's a mess. But when they had a referendum over what kind of republic they wanted, they still couldn't decide which kind they would prefer. Having a politician or ex politician acting as head of state is a worse mess: just look at the USA, France or Italy. What we have is a kind of muddling through which can work out better in practice than more theoretically optimal constitutions. Besides as a soap opera the monarchy is a relatively cheap form of entertainment compared to the TV license fee.
Very progressive, the modern church
I got as far as: "The Bishop of Willesden has been suspended over Facebook," and thought the bish of London very up with the times.
Come back the Bishop of Durham
An old Bishop of Durham, said, before he was bishop, that is, is reputed to have said "there is no god", which did prevent him ascending.
If you belong to a club it's a good idea to at least ad-hear to the rules in public. The idea of a Republican Anglican is a bit strange, when one of the things about the church is that it has the monarch as its head, but it is a broad church, perhaps he is an antidisestablishmentarianist, which I believe is acceptable.
Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll
If he spoke his views without sounding like a seven year old he might get more support. As a Bishop he should understand the power of choosing the correct words better then most but he comes off with all the class of a Your Momma joke.
- IT bloke publishes comprehensive maps of CALL CENTRE menu HELL
- Analysis Who is the mystery sixth member of LulzSec?
- Prankster 'Superhero' takes on robot traffic warden AND WINS
- Comment Congress: It's not the Glass that's scary - It's the GOOGLE
- Analysis Hey, Teflon Ballmer. Look, isn't it time? You know, time to quit?