The Queen debate seems to have died down so either the antis have given up or perhaps have been pacified.
One person wrote in - despite the lengthy explanations already given - and asked why the Queen couldn't just refuse to sign the legislation, saying she should be condemned for not doing so. One person even likened her to Hitler for not doing so - as if she, herself, had ordered the setting up of death camps to exterminate people!
How do you debate with people who refuse to debate and can only repeat themselves like parrots?
I won't rehearse the arguments all over again since those who think and understand will already have the point and those that don't, won't be persuaded by any argument from me, however cogent or good.
But in simple terms the answer is this: she can't; it would be illegal. It would be an illegal act against the constitution and the state, a coup d'etat, a revolution from the top.
What can one say to an alleged democrat who would be outraged if the Queen suddenly refused a law passed by the democratically-elected Parliament because she thought it wrong, but, because he thinks a law wrong, is just as outraged when she doesn't refuse it?
When he wants it, the Queen must be an autocrat. When he doesn't want it, she must not interfere with the democratically-elected Parliament.
That is no more than total chaos, anarchy and arbitrary government. Indeed, it is not government at all.
Yes, it would be much better if we had a constitution that followed God's law but the fact that we do not does not mean we - or the Queen - have the right to overthrow it.
So much is simply Catholic doctrine. It is lamentable that - seemingly - there are some Catholics who do not realise it.
We are bound to obey the law and the constitution, save where it orders us - personally - to do something immoral. That we must refuse, whatever the consequences. But we have no right to overthrow a legitimate constitution nor to insist that others do so, even the Queen.
The present constitutional convention is that the Queen is a protection of last resort against a rogue government that, say, refuses to hold a General Election or where there is a constitutional deadlock that cannot be resolved by the courts.
That is a vitally important power. The Queen has that power. But that is all. She has no other - or virtually no other - real power beyond that. That is our current constitution, for good or ill. We have no right to insist that it be overthrown. We may campaign for it to be changed by legitimate, constitutional means - but we do not have the right to overthrow it.
Nevertheless, your inconsistent and illogical democrat blames her for the Abortion Act and a host of other rotten laws besides. The mover of the Bill, Lord Steel, does not get the blame. The Wilson government who pushed it through do not get the blame. Those who voted for the Act do not get the blame. Oh, no. Only the one person who could do nothing about it gets the blame.
Well, it's a point of view!
Just not a well-informed one.
The real reason we have such laws as the Abortion Act is because we - the people as a nation - have lost our moral bearings. We have capitulated to the spirit of immoralism. If we want to blame anyone for our evil laws, we should start with ourselves.
Who voted in the governments that passed these laws? Was it the Queen? Oh, no. It was ourselves. WE voted them in! The Queen does not even get a vote!
Therefore the blame undoubtedly lies with ourselves.
And we cannot off-load it onto others. Particularly not if we ever voted for a member of a government that actually passed these odious laws. Blaming the Queen will not obviate our own blame.
No, it is us, ourselves, who have done it.