Reasons why Queen Elizabeth II should have abdicated over 1967 Abortion Act

Queen Elizabeth II, as a Christian monarch, should have made it clear that she would abdicate the British throne if the House of Commons voted to legalise abortion in 1967.

Seven million British citizens are unable to celebrate the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee because they have been killed in the womb as a result of this unjust law being put on the statute book during Her Majesty’s reign. The Abortion Act of 1967 was made law under Elizabeth II’s name.

In 2012 Crown Prince of  Liechtenstein  has done what Queen Elizabeth did not consider doing in 1967. Alois III has threatened to abdicate if voters support plans to curb his right to veto a liberalisation of abortion. Alois III told Liechtenstein’s parliament:

“The royal family is not willing to undertake its political responsibilities unless the prince has necessary tools at his disposal. If the people are no longer open to that, the royal family will not want to undertake its political responsibilities and will completely withdraw from political life.”

Elizabeth II’s abdication over the Abortion Act 1967  would have created a constitutional crisis that would have made clear to all future generations that the Labour government of the time, with the connivance of David Steel, had passed an unjust law that transgressed Christian morality and the natural law.

The fact that the British royal family had withdrawn from public life would have been a constant reminder to the British public that the UK had passed a grossly immoral law, instead of the current state of affairs in which the British pro-abortion establishment perpetrates the lie that abortion is normal and moral.

The tragedy for the UK celebrating the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee this weekend is that during her reign the following grossly immoral statistics are now seen as normal and moral:

  • 196,082 unborn children were murdered in 2011 through medical abortion
  • 1 in 3 women under the age of 45 have killed their children
  • 36 % of women who had abortions in 2011 had previously killed their unborn children.
  • 4 out of 5 abortions in 2011 were sought by unmarried women.
  • 1,000 abortions were carried out on children under the age of 15
  • 76 women who had abortions in 2011 have had 7 or more previous abortions
  • 1,960 children with special needs were killed through abortion in 2011.

In his recent homily on the occasion of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, said something remarkable for a Church of England bishop, when he criticised the abortion of children in the UK:

“Literally millions of children grow up without knowing a stable, loving, secure family life – and that is not to count the hundreds of thousands more who don’t even make it out of the womb each year.”

The Bishop Of London has had the courage to say something this country blindly intent on celebrating the Queen’s jubilee needs to hear, every year this country kills 100,000′s of our most vulnerable fellow citizens. Our celebrations this weekend add gross insult to profound moral injury.


38 comments to Reasons why Queen Elizabeth II should have abdicated over 1967 Abortion Act

  • Jackie Parkes


    • harry

      Putting the particular point at issue to one side; if any British monarch decided to make a political stand then they would have to abdicate. End of story, no discussion, by by Queen.

      There are good reasons for that, which I don’t need to labour.

      • Deacon Nick

        Harry as usual you ignore the point being made. My argument is that the Queen should have abdicated in protest to the passing of a grossly immoral law, just as the Crown Prince has threatened to do. Its not a question of being forced to abdicate, but of willingly abdicating because the government is so immoral. Deacon Nick

  • harry

    And I’m saying that your point, good, bad or indifferent does not arise. No UK monarch could have the effect that the prince did. We fought a war and killed a king to make very sure of that.

    Have you written to Mrs Windsor with your suggestion Nick?

  • Mark Thorne

    I’ve never considered the possibility of Her Majestry Queen Elizabeth II abdicating the throne in conscientious objection to her Government passing an undemocratic law that transgresses Christian morality and the natural law. She will surely have a second opportunity to demonstrate her Christian credentials in this way though with the pending legislation of same-sex marriage.

    • harry

      Start holding your breath Mark.In state matters the monarch has no opinion.

      • Mark Thorne

        I believe that the monarch still retains a legal right to appoint a Prime Minister (happened with Harold MacMillan in 1957 when the cOnservative Party did not formally elect their leaders), dissolve a Parliament (I think the Queen could have exercised this power in the light of the expenses scandal), dismiss a Government and withhold royal assent to legislation passed by the Houses of Parliament. The latter of these is of the greatest interest here, as it is germane to the topic under discussion in this post. These powers have never been formally “stripped” from the Queen by Acts of Parliament, although a monarch would not see ordinarily to exercise any of them. Irrespective of political neutrality, the Queen does reserve the right to abdicate the throne of her own volition, e.g. if she wanted to become a Catholic.

  • Karla

    Didn’t she sign the 1967 Abortion Act?

  • Another reason why we should pray very hard for the Queen’s conversion to the true faith.

  • Burt

    Inarguably had Elizabeth abdicated over the 1967 abortion act it would have been a tremendous deed. I think we should extend her a kindness in allowing that it would be a decision that would be saintly and although sainthood is called for us all, how few of us achieve. So we must take stock of how much due weight would lie on her shoulders on the whole question of the role of the monarchy such a decision contains, and her responsibility to preserve it.
    For good or ill it seems obvious that the Queen has taken it as her unfortunate duty to rubber stamp the bills that parliament puts before her whatever they happen to be.
    unfortunately we probably will never know how she has dealt with Prime Ministers privately when immoral anti Christian legislation is in the process of being brought forward and being discussed. Who would not want to be a fly on the wall during those days, and indeed I wonder how her audiences with Cameron go about his proposed redefinition of marriage.
    As I say it is a bit ungracious to expect saintly actions from the Queen.
    I do feel Pope John XXIII was figure we have much more reason to expect sainthood from, and I do wish he never made the disastrous decision to call the Second Vatican Council. I think this world would be a better place for that. Who knows what damage has been inflicted on the whole secular world only arising from the wrecked faith of Catholics everywhere. I feel the world would not be in the mess it is had we all only kept the respectful ways of receiving the Blessed Sacrament and had the mystery that the Mass always whispered to our souls before the novus ordo was introduced.

  • Teresa

    One of the lines of the National Anthem is “may she defend our laws” ….. these words seem a bit pointless.

    • harry

      No Teresa, that is the point; they’re ‘our’ laws not hers, mine or your’s. We won’t all agree with individual bits of law for various reasons.

  • Chris Wright

    Deacon Nick – 100% in agreement.

    God bless!

  • Ioannes

    If I remember correctly, the late King Baldwin of the Belgians abdicated for one day so that parliament could enact the abortion law which he in conscience couldn’t sign.

    The Queen, being a constitutional monarch, cannot withold assent from a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament (the last monarch to do so was Queen Anne). In appointing Tory Prime Ministers before Edward Heath the Queen was advised by party grandees. We know Victoria had great objections to Palmerston’s becoming PM but had to accept him as he was the Liberal Party’s choice. Nor can she dissolve Parliament of her own volition. She can in theory refuse a request for a dissolution; this would be a constitutional safeguard in the unlikely event of a PM who had lost a general election refusing to resign and instead trying to force another general election in the knowledge that the opinion polls were moving in his favour (she would ask the Leader of the Opposition to attempt to form a government).

    Thanks to Blair’s meddling, the British Constitution is in a mess, but the Queen’s role is essentially as Bagehot described it in the 19th century; to be consulted, to advise and to warn. Had HM abdicated in 1967 either the military would have supported her and staged a coup (unlikely, although they hated the Wilson government)or we would have become a republic.

  • just asking

    I am glad Her Majesty didn’t abdicate. I don’t think it would have been a good thing to have had 45 fewer years of Queen who has made a great contribution to the nation and in her own measured way to the Christian faith

    • Mark Thorne

      I too am pleased to have the present monarch with us. Aside from Bishop Mark Davies (a newcomer), I find her to be the most lucid advocate for Christianity this country has. But I was pleasantly surprised, as Deacon Nick was, to find an Anglican Bishop speaking out against abortion recently.

  • John Oglander

    I fully agree with Diacon Nick’s argument. I am disappointed that the Queen has done nothing to prevent a whole raft of anti-Christian laws since the Abortion Act 1967. It would have been better if she had refused the Royal Assent to the Abortion Act 1967, and then lost her job as a result, than materially cooperated in evil. She is after all the Defender of the Faith, and the Church of England is opposed to abortion and same sex marriage. For this reason, together with the heavily Masonic nature of the Royal Family and its cooperation in setting up the New World Order, I have not been very happy about the festivities surrounding the Diamond Jubilee. England will never be a Christian or happy country again until Our Lady receives her again as Her dowry and she is consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart, like she was in the Middle Ages, before she became a Protestant imperial power starting in the 16th Century.

  • Michael Petek

    The Queen cannot unilaterally abdicate, as she reigns by force of a law which she did not make and cannot change without the assent of both Houses of Parliament. An unjust law such as the Abortion Act is not a law at all, so it makes no difference whether she gives Royal Assent or not.

    It is the duty of her judiciary to strike down laws which are inconsistent with the Coronation Oath and with their own oaths of office. The role of the Christian faithful – in particular the laity – is to provide the critical mass within the political community to stabilise the throne so that the Queen in her courts, and if necessary in person, has the legitimacy to make this kind of judicial intervention.

    • “The Queen cannot unilaterally abdicate” Edward VIII and James II did.

      I’m no fan of the Royal Family but I really think this article is mean spirited.
      For a start she’s not a Catholic so what would she be doing abdicating over a Catholic issue?
      Not that it isn’t important to protestants but her symbolic role as head of the CofE is to do what the bishops and the Anglican Communion want her to. When Edward VIII took on the bishops of the CofE he was forced to abdicate, when James II did he was driven into exile and when Charles I did he was decapitated. When are any of you going to realise this is not a Catholic country…? I dont think you can lay the 1967 abortion act on the Queen. Historically the only issues monarchs have resigned over in England are their divine right to rule and their personal carnal desires. It is simply false to state the Church of England is opposed to abortion full stop – the truth is a lot more complicated than that. And there is a divergence of opinion between Anglicans and Catholics on these issues dating back at least until the 1958 Lambeth conference. It is a main battleground between the Vatican and Anglican Communion. Therefore it seems to be a bit simplistic to dump all the blame on the Queen. It is a cheap debating trick of the type that Christopher Hitchens used to indulge in. Shoot the messanger even if they’re not even carrying the message.

      I dont believe she is value for money and the CofE and the monarchy may be a self serving rich clique that I feel totally alienated by but I do think the Queen herself is , generally speaking, a fairly honest woman who genuinely believes in her vocation – even if to me it is slightly absurd. I also believe she is a genuine Christian who genuinely believes in following the path of Christ and the gospels which is one of her more endearing qualities. At the very least she’s managed to keep a husband for 64 years which must be worth celebrating.

      But no, on this site EVERYTHING is about abortion and homosexuality. There are no other issues.
      So go on then. Alienate yourself further from your few political allies. There is no doubt that the 1967 abortion act has been implented in ways which even David Steel admits are socially undesirable but really this kind of monomaniacal attack is simply not the best way to achieve change. That said it doesn’t sound like a lot of you believe in democracy.

      • Deacon Nick

        No, I don’t believe in democracy when it comes to the murder of children whom the State decides aren’t human beings. Deacon Nick.

        • Well, I can see your argument that the state killing its own citizens may undermine democratic principle a little, but you do have to at least consider that people are entitled to reach differing views on the point at which a fetus “becomes” a human being.

          That said I feel that it is disengenuous to state that you dont believe in a democratic state while encouraging everyone to use legal state protection. By the way, are you actually a UK citizen? I have to admit to some curiosity given the US/Irish nature of much of the material on this site. Are you an immigrant? Do you actually have a vote here?

          That said, not really much of a shock there are so many who believe abortion is not murder given there is an entire industry involved in promoting what people want to believe over what is actually true. As David Ames would say “I shall never cease to be amazed at the manner in which some of those involved in the abortion industry seek to deceive themselves.”

          A quite interesting debate from hansard here:

          • Deacon Nick

            Anthony, I was born a British citizen in south London and have voted in every election since reaching the age of 18. I was even, much to my regret, a donor to the Labour party. But I no longer feel that I’m a citizen of this country, because I no longer recognize the country in which I live. It seems to me that we may have ‘physically’ won the Second World War, but morally and spiritually we lost it. We are ruled by Hitler’s children in parliament, the media, the judiciary and education establishment. Might is right, survival of the fittest. Have you noticed how few are the children with Downs Syndrome now? The majority have been eradicated.

            I don’t agree with you that people are entitled to reach differing views on the point a fetus ‘becomes’ a human being. What species does the conceptus belong to? What species does the fetus belong to? From conception he or she is an embryonic human being.

            Thanks for the quote from David Ames and the Hansard link. Deacon Nick

  • john mckenna

    David Alton said instead of arguing about what kind of Christians we are , we should be asking , are we Christiana at all.? The bible is clear abortion is murder. If somebody came into Ur home and threatened to kill Ur granny would u not try to stop them ? Or would u just bleatingly remark how awful it was and do nothing. We are all culpable in this silent holocaust

  • fd

    The Italian Milan-based daily “Italia Oggi” criticizes the largest Italian papers (Milan’s Corriere della Sera and Rome’s La Repubblica ) because, the day after 1 million people gathered in Milan with the Pope and the city hosted between 1.5 and 2 million pilgrims the world over over the weekend, on Monday these two newspapers had on the front page the celebration of Queen Elizabeth and NOT the Pope and te Family day.
    ( Both newspapers made the Mass with the Pope the headline of their local edition for the Lombardy paper which can be read though only by the people who live in Lombardy,but this event was a world event so it’s really astonishing ). And this after a week of speculation by the media (including La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera ) over the “poisons” and “divisions” in the Vatican, which -on the other hand – are seen as difference of opinions by L’Osservatore Romano who denounces the fact that on the one hand the Vatican is condemned for not giving freedom of thought and on the other, if there are indeed divergencies, this is seen as “poisons and divisions”.
    Now as the BBC reports, one of the things (based on which the media want to put the Vatican on the docks ), which emerge from Nuzzi’ book is this sentence by the Pope ” Why do these Italians always have to bother me with their Italian quarrels”.
    I’ll just give you an example of the Italian quarrels which our country is full of: On Monday RAI 1′ main news programme (which is considered pro-Catholic) interviwed the Vatican secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone on the recent events.
    The following day other RAI channels (RAI 3 and the all news RAINEWS24) attacked … NOT Bertone . They attacked the RAI ONE channel and its interviewer for being too lenient in the interview and for not making difficult questions.
    So, these is indeed and example of ubiquitous Italian quarrels

  • Karla

    Off topic:

    UK Govt’ continues to edge slowly away from politically disastrous “gay marriage” plans

  • fd

    Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone has given an exclusive interview to the large circulation weekly magazine Famiglia Cristiana.
    The interview, which will be on the next edition of the Milan-based Catholic magazine, has been anticipated by Famiglia Cristiana itself on its website. In the interview Cardinal Bertone says that some journalists have been trying to copy-cat Dan Brown ( he mentions-of the many “fabrications” as he called them in the interview- the rumour in the Italian press that a Cardinal from the Vatican had told him not to become Secretary of State, when he was appointed by the Pope. Bertone says this is not true) . Furthermore, he says that it’s been immoral to publish private letters sent to the Pope by private people, without asking them first. He also told Famiglia Cristiana magazine that there is an attempt going on to try and divide the Church.
    The Roman daily “La Repubblica” has dubbed his interview to Famiglia Cristiana a “mediatic counter-attack”

  • Robert Ian Williams

    Our Queen is head of state in 15 other realms, and her record as regards the unborn child is equally dismal. In Canada her name is on the Act permitting gay marriage. On not one occasion, has her Majesty used the royal prerogative to reject such legislation.

    Our Queenin the sunset of her life needs wise spiritual counsel and prayer..not sycophants telling her she is so wonderful.A good and true friend tells you the truth.

    God save the Queen.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>