One from a couple of weeks back:
BBC: Queen highlights Church of England's duty to all faiths
The Queen has spoken of her belief that the Church of England has "a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths" in the UK.
In a speech at London's Lambeth Palace, she argued the Church's role was not to "defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions".
She added the concept of an established Church was "occasionally misunderstood" and "commonly under-appreciated".
The concept of an established church misunderstood? By whom? Surely Her Majesty wasn't having a quiet pop at secularists! It seems to me that secularists understand perfectly well the concept of an established church—which is why they oppose it.
Do you think the founder of the Church of England, one of Her Majesty's more colourful predecessors, would have agreed that the church had a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths? That's certainly not my recollection from history lessons. And, if history teaches us anything, it is that
you should never try to invade Russia in the winter state-endorsed faiths are an extremely bad idea indeed.
On the subject of the Queen's colourful predecessors, it occurs to me that, for all their drawbacks, it is getting on for 200 years since we had a window-lickingly, stark-staringly bonkers head of state. Still, there's always next time, eh? (And you were wondering why the Scotch Nationalists are dragging their heels so much about this referendum thing.)