Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 31, 2012 at 3:33pm

Yes, that's not the 'Majesty' whom Quakers, of any nation, were called to be loyal to...

Our own American fellow-traveler Walt Whitman (who was acquainted with Friends, but so far as I know never tried to join (?)):

"Take off your hat to nothing known or unknown

or to any man or number of men...

Re-examine all

you have been told at school or church or in any book,

dismiss whatever insults your own soul..."

------------------------

If we stipulate that God is not "a thing" I'd say he's got a piece of it here.

Comment by Nenad Knezevic on 4th mo. 3, 2012 at 4:46am

We've just had a long discussion on this in the Quakers group on FB. I'm sorry that an otherwise good address has been marred by the debate on that one word. I tend to see it as a formality, but I also perfectly understand why many Quakers feel nothing less than outrage over the use of "majesty". For all it matters, I'm proud of the Friends who wrote and delivered the address, and I find their message way more important than the use of formal title.

Comment by Allistair Lomax on 4th mo. 3, 2012 at 9:17am

Oddly enough, I can't find much to detract from in the content of the address either, but then again liberal Friends are good at expressing things that border on the platitudinous that few would disagree with. It's the slightly sycophantic tone of the address that bothered me, and more importantly, what the address didn't say. I don't have any problem with Quakers addressing the monarch in principle, but it should be from the position of a radical church making a prophetic witness, as Fox and Early Friends.

The address should have made references to the increasing inequality in our society between rich and poor, and the use of the monarchy by the 'establishment' in the UK to perpetuate and justify such divisions in society, and the also nothing was made mention of the continued involvement of the Royal Family in the miltary establishment. Not to mention the undemocratic nature of the hereditary political system that Elizabeth Windsor represents. I think the address was more a tamed whimper from what will be viewed as a quaint religious backwater. I'm personally sorry that BYM did not take the opportunity to make a profound witness

Comment by Allistair Lomax on 4th mo. 10, 2012 at 10:39am

Thanks for your comment, Jane. I hope you won't mind if I respond. I don't think you should read anything into the fact the Britain Yearly Meeting was invited to address Elizabeth Windsor at all. It was probably done because the 'Palace' knew that BYM Quakers wouldn't say anything to 'rock the boat', which true to form, they didn't.

Quaint can also mean 'dismissable' and 'irrelevant'.

Comment by David Nelson Seaman on 7th mo. 9, 2012 at 7:59am

Here across the pond, many of us appreciate the "ceremonial" function of the monarchy and its significance to the history of Britian.   As Americans, however, it is impossible to relate to a family bloodline which in any way shape or form presumes a divine right of inherited superiority over other citizens.   We hold the Truth to be self-evident; all men are created eqaul.   I would like to think that BYM is participating in nothing more than polite ceremonial exchanges as part of the Jubilee, but I also have an awareness that there exists in Britian a entrenched social class system which permits "privilaged individuals" to live and thrive on these pretensions and ceremonies at a social and economic cost carried by others.   Its a pretty show, but I question the cost and the perpetuation of social class distinctions which should have been erased decades ago.

Comment