Quakers address British queen

Quakers in Britain addressed the queen today as part of her diamond jubilee events.

Here is the full text:

Loyal Address to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on behalf of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain (Quakers) on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee

“May it please The Queen
As representatives of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain, called Quakers, we offer our congratulations on the occasion of your Diamond Jubilee.

We give thanks for the commitment you have shown through six decades as monarch and for your steadfast upholding of the value of faith to our nation’s wellbeing.
We recall your speech to the United Nations General Assembly in July 2010 when you reflected on the leadership required in the waging of peace. Quaker tradition from the days of Charles II has led our Society to stand for conscientious action to find new ways to create peace, to seek equality, justice and active nonviolence and now to address the urgent work needed to sustain the earth for future generations.
We lament the resort to armed conflict as an instrument of policy. We welcome your personal commitment to peace, such as you have shown in relation to Ireland.

Our commitment to equality led us in 2009 to seek a change in the law to provide for same sex and opposite sex marriages on an equal basis. This is because of our deeply held belief that we see the light of God in everyone which leads us to respect the inherent worth of each individual and each loving relationship. We see the recent move to allow the celebration of civil partnerships on religious premises as a step towards full equality in marriage.

Last year, Quakers in Britain met in the worshipful stillness that is our tradition, and made a strong corporate commitment to become a low-carbon, sustainable community. Quaker John Woolman’s words in 1772 still sound clearly to us today: ‘The produce of the earth is a gift from our gracious creator to the inhabitants, and to impoverish the earth now to support outward greatness appears to be an injury to the succeeding age.’

This concern grows from our faith, and cannot be separated from it. We have long been aware that our behaviour impoverishes the earth and that it is our responsibility both to conserve the earth’s resources and to share them more equitably. The environmental crisis is enmeshed with global economic injustice and we must face our responsibility, as one of the nations which has unfairly benefited at others’ expense, to redress inequalities.

The global economic system is posited on continued expansion and growth, and in its pursuit of growth it is often unjust, violent and destructive.  We must ask the question whether this system is so broken that we must urgently work with others of faith and good will to put in its place a different system where the values of equality, simplicity, peace and truth can flourish. 

We see all this work as pursuing justice and building peace.

We pray that God’s light may continue to illuminate your path. May God’s blessing rest upon you, your family and all people.”

The address was signed by Christine Cannon, clerk, on behalf of Meeting for Sufferings, the standing representative committee of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain.

A slighter shorter oral version of this text was read to the queen by Joycelin Dawes, clerk and chair of trustees at Quaker social Action and associate tutor at Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre in Birmingham. She was among twelve Quakers who attended.

14 thoughts on “Quakers address British queen

  1. I am glad we took something to this event, although many Friends disagree with us attending such an event. I feel proud that we were able to take a message that talked about what we are trying to achieve and hope that society will achieve to.

    I think it would of been more of a mistake not to attend this event and feel strongly that if Friends want to say who we are that includes speaking to those we disagree with, there is nothing to stop us taking a message that might not be popular, it is important that we are able to put across our views while respecting those of others, this statement does this in my opinion.

    Our commitment to speak to all, those in power and those who are not is important and opportunities like this should not be missed. Although I do not believe the statement says as much as it could I do believe it is a good start.

  2. After the highly publicised harsh voices from some religious groups on same sex marriage I welcome the Quakers healing comments on the issue

  3. A Disloyal Address to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on behalf of some Friends in Britain (Quakers) on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee

    May the Queen note that some individual Quaker members do not offer our congratulations on the occasion of your Diamond Jubilee.

    We note the commitment you have shown through six decades as monarch to perpetuate your family’s succession and for your steadfast upholding of the value of faith in the church you head to our nation’s wellbeing.


    We recall the your speech, composed by your advisors, to the United Nations General Assembly in July 2010, that you delivered without hint of irony, when you reflected on the leadership required in the waging of peace compared the numerous occasions of war being declared by use of Royal Perogative.

    Quaker tradition from the days of Charles II (when we advised him that we were not plotters to save Friends from his persecution) has led our Society to stand for conscientious objection and to find new ways to create peace, to seek equality, justice and active nonviolence and now to address the urgent work needed to sustain the earth for future generations.

    
We lament the resort to armed conflict as an instrument of policy.

    We welcome anyones personal commitment to peace, but a few words you have spoken in relation to Ireland do not convince us when we see your family actively promoting the arms trade.

    Our commitment to equality led us in 2009 to seek a change in the law to provide for same sex and opposite sex marriages on an equal basis. This is because of our deeply held belief that we see The Spirit’s light in everyone which leads us to respect the inherent worth of each individual and each loving relationship. We see the recent move to allow the celebration of civil partnerships on religious premises as a minor step towards full equality in marriage though it does not allow us to marry same-sex Friends.

    Last year, some of the Quakers in Britain met in the worshipful stillness that is our tradition, and made a strong corporate commitment to become a low-carbon, sustainable community. The meaning of Quaker John Woolman’s words in 1772 still sound clearly to us today as the produce of the earth is for all it’s inhabitants, and to impoverish the earth now to support outward greatness appears to be an injury to the succeeding age.

    This concern grows from our faith, and cannot be separated from it. We have long been aware that our behaviour impoverishes the earth and that it is our responsibility both to conserve the earth’s resources and to share them more equitably.

    The environmental crisis is enmeshed with global economic injustice and we must face our responsibility, as one of the nations which has unfairly benefited through Empire at others’ expense, to redress inequalities.

    Inequality starts in our state by a hereditary monarchy using an honours system in support of global corporations that consolidate wealth not just by the obnoxious use of force your ancestors promoted but by personal greed and stealing resources that belong to the citizen.

    The global economic system is posited on continued expansion and growth, and in its pursuit of growth it is often unjust, violent and destructive. 

    We must ask the question whether this system is so broken that we must urgently work with others of faith and good will to put in its place a different system where the values of equality, simplicity, peace and truth can flourish. 

    There is no place in this system for monarchs or dictators.

    We see all this work as pursuing justice and building peace.

    We pray that The Light will illuminate your path and that you will announce that citizens may chose who they want as head of state on your death.

    We ask that The Spirit’s blessing rest upon you & your family but more importantly on all people who make this island their home.

    • As a ‘new’ Friend, I was somehwat amused to read this (the post and comments). I have sympathies with both sides of the ‘argument’ raging here. However, I do think it is unfortunate to equate ‘our’ monarchy with dictators.
      ‘Our’ monarchy is indeed an anachronism – a rather quaint one and that is its attraction. There are possibly ‘better’ monarchies (in Scandinavia?) but it might be better to reform it than rue the day we have an elected head of state (complete with party political line?).
      The tradition is a bit like celebrating Christmas – it could be a bit of harmless pagan fun perhaps?
      I find it very difficult to decide whether to be ashamed or embarrassed to be ‘English’ (75% anyway!) or proud of it. What is there to be proud of and does it matter?
      Let’s not have an American, French or even Indian style President – so long as the Windsors don’t mind suffering the chore. Indeed, it is a hardship which merits some compensation.
      Will Charles insist (as has been rumoured) on being ‘Defender of Faiths’? (He appears to be more sympathetic to Islam than Christianity, bless his charming insouciance).
      We should worry about titles and the House of Lords – make the latter an upper house of three year ‘victims’ chosen at random just like jury service (‘sortition’ – look this up and also voting systems in wikipedia!). Reform the monarchy in various ways yet hang on to our ‘English’ tradition – just for fun! That would be preferable to another Civil War I think!

    • Thank you Maggie, I don’t feel the need to be disloyal to support your rewording, because I don’t feel the need to be loyal either. I am glad that you wrote this because I was hugely perplexed when I read the original address. Elizabeth Windsor is an extraordinary person, and much has been made of the long hours she ‘works’ – all I can say is, ‘Me too’ and billions like me. The spirit reveals the truth that all are equal and I feel regret that Quakers in the UK did not bear witness to this fact in their address to her.

  4. I am happy with 90% of the content. However, I have three serious areas of concern which I believe are very real problems:

    1. The use of ‘Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’ as a salutation is clearly contrary to the very longstanding (i.e. back to 1650s) Quaker testimony against the use of special titles and social graces to our ‘superiors’. The divisions of social class, status and rank sadly remain a key feature of British society.

    2. The reference to the Queen’s “steadfast upholding of the value of faith to our nation’s wellbeing” ignores the fact that the Queen is the official head of the established church. This church retains rights and privileges that are not available to any other faith group in the country (including the right to have Bishops in the House of Lords). The Queen is therefore the figurehead of an anachronistic form of state-church Christendom that Quakers have opposed since the 1650s. Again we appear to be condoning special priviledge and status.

    3. The Queen is the Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces and yet we “welcome (her) personal commitment to peace”. As Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, she has formally supported every act of war that Britain has taken during the past 60 years (it would be interesting to calculate how many deaths that amount to). I therefore find this specific ‘compliment’ particularly hard to swallow.

    It is a pity that these three very serious problems overshadow for me the other quite useful statements about what Friends in Britain see as important today.

  5. Whilst very much sympathising with the concerns of Jonathan, Maggie & Stuart, I guess that those charged with making this address had to weigh up whether it was more important to get the meat of message across or to momentarily relax the testimony on the use of titles.

    The address got a lot of publicity for its content. If the speaker had insisted on calling her Lillibet (or whatever she is known by) Windsor it is almost certain that the press would have concentrated on that and not on the content.

  6. As an American, I know that I do not fully grasp the intricacies of the emotions and histories in play here, but I can tell you that I am _shocked_ by this address – on two accounts.

    I am _all for_ speaking to every individual in a loving way that honors their Light Within. Ms. Windsor deserves the respect that we all do. Also, this was an opportunity to address a woman of power and means, so it was practical to attempt not to alienate her or those who are her “gate-keepers.” All good. But this address goes way past such thoughts.

    For one thing, it looks on first (and second) pass to be a compromise in the worst sense of the word. The suggestion that the press would have ignored the content of the message and gone for sensationalism if the address had broken with tradition is a valid point, but to my mind was not reason enough to present something A) so antithetical to Quakers’ longstanding objection to official social-status designations, etc., and B) so incredibly innocuous, as the bulk of this message is. It’s almost as if, to avoid inviting a media mini-frenzy, the writers chose to draw as little attention to the Society as they possibly could. You think the press would have ignored the content if the address had been to, e.g., “Ms. Elizabeth Windsor, Acting Monarch”? Or if the writers had had the gall to begin with something other than “If it please the Queen” (a phrase which makes my American mind reel)? How much attention is the content getting now? Granted, I haven’t done a news search to see if British papers have all taken up heralding the messages here, but I’m betting there’s been barely a peep. I mean, who _cares_ if Quakers follow form, say some liberal things, and then remind everyone – again – that they’re conscientious objectors? Snooze. This message shows only the tiniest inkling of courage — of the _real_ courage that many Friends demonstrate in other situations and which is, in a way, slightly betrayed here, or at least undersold. This address just speaks mutually congratulatory platitudes to power. What’s the point? To show that we’ve made up with the monarchy since all that troubling Charles II business? “We lament the resort to armed conflict as an instrument of policy” – ?! We “lament” it?? Is that what we do? Yes, we sit at home with our gluten-free biscuits and shed mighty tears into our fair-trade teas. Lament, indeed. Astonishingly weak! “Utterly denying all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretense whatsoever” it ain’t.

    Secondly and somewhat separately, I am stunned that this made it through to delivery, that there was not a huge – or at least noticeable – contingent of British Friends who would stand in the way of this message, which begins, “As representatives of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain, called Quakers….” What was the clearness process, I wonder. Was this address approved as-is at BYM? I can hardly imagine such a thing! I would be very interested to hear what the process was. Did it take you a year? Was it only written by the Meeting for Sufferings and not dispersed for approval by more Friends? Given how riled so many British Friends are by it now, no doubt, how did those people not have an opportunity to share their insights in advance? Or did they? Shocked as I am that any significant group of Friends saw clear to present this in this form, if proper process was followed, and way was clearly clear (!), I guess I would have to stand aside and simply wait and pray for a better understanding.

    • Friend speaks my mind… The statement certainly didn’t go through Yearly Meeting, presumably it was agreed by Meeting for Sufferings – anyone?
      Surely the idea that it is OK ‘to momentarily relax the testimony on the use of titles’ completely nullifies the meaning of a testimony. What is the point of refusing to use flattering worldly titles, except when addressing people who require flattering worldly titles…
      By the way, my understanding is that the Quaker testimony is against the use of honorifics such as ‘Your Majesty’, ‘Your Worship’, ‘Your Honour’ etc, and not the use of ‘job titles’ such as Queen, Judge etc. George Fox in fact wrote to Charles II addressing him (with considerably greater courage than we have shown here) ‘O King’!

    • Yes thoroughly agree with all you say. I’m just about to write a critique of British Quakers, and would love to quote you if you are in agreement. I am a former Clerk of Education, a former Clerk of the then Central Committee for Social Responsibility and Educatio, a member of Meeting for Sufferings etc etc, who has simply walked away from the Society in disgust, but still loves it.

    • I cannot, frankly, be at all appalled by any of it, milquetoast as some of the courage displayed is, indirect as the testimony given of those Testimonies we strive to impart appears, and poor as the process involved for speaking for the whole of the Religious Society in Britain may have been. After seeing 90% of the attendance stand in honor of the entrance of the retired murderous dictator of Kenya, Daniel arap Moi, in his regal arrogance commandeering over 30 minutes of the plenary sessions of the 6th World Gathering of Friends, i doubt that very many modern Quakers have a clue about courage, witness, or effort for living out their religious commitments. Compared to Moi, Lizzy Windsor is a saint and worthy of adoration; his hands are literally blood-stained, not at third degree, and his riches are truly and legally stolen, not just inherited and ill-gotten. And although the British loyalist press would certainly have made a mockery of plain speech directed at the Queen, it is likely that the very Evangelical Daniel might have ordered his armed staff present to spray a few rounds from their automatic assault weapons around the hall if he had heard the few lone voices raised in protest of the world’s false manners invading the Quaker world, especially for a tyrant known for the crimes that were named. Sadly the protestors were told they were distracting the assembly from hearing the Unity we sought… I know some of the pressures on the leaders of the Conference who were given no time to consult and no power to resist his invasion, and i cannot say they did wrong. But the other attendees who showed him honor… Honor?!
      . This is tempest in a teapot comparatively.

  7. The decision to make a statement was agreed by “meeting for sufferings”, the interim body of the yearly meeting between yearly meeting sessions. And a process for the statement was agreed:
    S/12/02/15: Correspondence received
    As a Privileged Body, we have received a letter from the Comptroller of the Lord Chamberlain’s Office inviting us to present a loyal address to the Queen, on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee, at Buckingham Palace on 27 March 2012 (paper S/12/02/H).

    We have heard some reservations about the principle of offering a loyal address but we believe this is an opportunity to communicate what we hold most important.

    The address will be drafted in the light of comments made in this meeting. We agree that the delegation should be made up of Friends representing different parts of the yearly meeting.

    A draft of the address will be considered by the Meeting for Sufferings Arrangements Group at its meeting on 17th February. After this, we ask our clerk to approve and sign the address on our behalf.

    See http://www.quaker.org.uk/meeting-sufferings-minutes-february-2012

  8. And here is the queen’s reply to all the privileged bodies:

    “It is ten years since you were last gathered here on the occasion of my Golden Jubilee. Over the past decade, you, the Privileged Bodies and corporations of the United Kingdom have continued your important work in supporting the core values of this nation, in helping to preserve our time-honoured traditions and most importantly,in shaping its future.

    Today’s ceremony, on the occasion of my Diamond Jubilee, provides an opportunity to reflect on the significant contribution your diverse organisations have made to the fabric andwell-being ofsociety.Overthe past 60 years, you have strengthened this country, boosting prosperity through innovation and development, and enriching its spiritual life.

    For those bodies in the fields of education, science and the arts, you have added to our intellectual capital and enhanced our reputation for ingenuity and creativity; the Church and other religious bodies have offered a spiritual and social framework,sustainedcommunitiesandhelped the disadvantaged; while the civic and other bodies have provided vital services to support people in their daily lives. All of you have worked to promote cooperation and friendshipwithin the communities of the United Kingdom, and the wider Commonwealth community.

    Today’s gathering allows us to pay tribute to the leaders of the Privileged Bodies represented here today, but also to the staff and volunteers who are the strength of these organisations. I have enjoyed reading your Loyal Addresses which reflect the professional excellence and achievementfor which you are internationally renowned.

    Prince PhilipandI thank you for your warm expressions of loyalty and affection, andforthe dedicated service you continue to offer our nation.”

Leave a Reply