Revoke Prince George Gay Prayer!

Provost Kelvin Holdsworth prayed for Prince George to be homosexual.

Provost Kelvin Holdsworth prayed for Prince George to be homosexual.

A renegade Scottish churchman has prayed for little Prince George to turn out homosexual.

We must come against this prayer in the power of the Holy Spirit. The people of God shall revoke the curse of the evil prayer by words of peace and righteousness and praying good for the young third-in-line to the throne.

Year-old blog post

The Very Reverend Kelvin Holdsworth wrote a blog post last year urging people to pray Prince George ‘to be blessed one day with the love of a fine young gentleman.’ Mr Holdsworth is provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow. He is from the Scottish Episcopal Church, which voted to allow gay couples to gay-marry earlier this year. The BBC reported the story here.

Same-sex marriages in Anglican churches are banned in England and in Wales

In his blog post, Mr Holdsworth said that if Prince William’s four-year-old son married another man in the future it would help the Church of England become more inclusive.

‘A royal wedding might sort things out remarkably easily though we might have to wait 25 years for that to happen,’ he wrote.

‘Who knows whether that might be sooner than things might work out by other means?’

Royal wedding hijacked

Provost Holdsworth hijacked the wedding of Prince Harry & Meghan Markle

Provost Holdsworth hijacked the wedding of Prince Harry & Meghan Markle

He tweeted the post again following the news of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s engagement.

‘This quote seems to be getting a lot of attention because it was picked up by a number of anti-gay campaigners in the Church of England,’ he said.

‘It is a shame that the happy news about the royal wedding has been hijacked in this way.’

(Which is a strange comment from one who hijacked it in the first place by retweeting a year-old post to make a pro-sodomy political point at the expense of Prince George off the back of Harry and Meghan’s forthcoming wedding.)

‘Unkind and destructive’

Gavin Ashenden, a former chaplain to the Queen and a Christian Episcopal Church missionary bishop, said the comments were not Christian.

‘To use prayer as a mechanism for wishing this on Prince George is an unkind and destructive thing to do,’ he told the BBC.  It doesn’t have the prince’s best interests at heart, but uses him as a gender-political football to please 1.7% of the population.

‘What is especially odd and incongruous is the fact that it is suddenly OK to pray for someone to be gay, but totally unacceptable to pray for them to be free from being gay and to resume a sexuality that was in tune with their biology.

‘This seems not only contradictory but hypocritical.’

According to the Independent, Mr Ashenden told Christian Today: ‘It is an unkind and destabilising prayer. It is the theological equivalent of the curse of the wicked fairy in one of the fairy tales.

‘To co-opt the Royal children to service a narrow sexual agenda seems particularly tasteless.’

Bishop less than impressed

Susie Leafe, the director of the conservative evangelical group Reform, was also critical of Mr Holdsworth’s blog about Prince George.  ‘I was very disappointed that he was prepared to bring a child in to this same-sex marriage debate,’ she told the BBC.

‘As a Christian minister he should pray for all people to come to know the love of Christ, rather than a fine young gentleman.’

Rt Rev Dr Gregor Duncan, Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway, indicated he was not at all pleased. He said: ‘The comments made by Provost Holdsworth were made on his personal blog.

‘As his blog indicates, the views expressed there are his personal ones.

‘They do not represent an official view of the Scottish Episcopal Church nor are they ones with which I would concur. I will be discussing this matter with Provost Holdsworth.’

Reality of homosexuality

The cover of King & King, a campaigning book for school sex education designed to groom children into accepting homosexuality as normal. Parents should be on their guard.

The cover of King & King, a campaigning book for school sex education designed to groom children into accepting homosexuality as normal. Parents should be on their guard.

Gay activists maintain, contrary to the scientific evidence, that people are ‘born gay.’ They say it is impossible to change sexuality. If they are right, it is already determined whether Prince George is ‘straight’ or ‘gay’. The renegade provost would be praying for something which has already happened – or rather, not happened.

Some of us will acknowledge one can pray after the event, not knowing the outcome. The theology of that says the Lord knows we shall pray before we actually do, and he plainly has the capacity to change events according to the imminent prayer.

But the reality is that a combination of factors come into play in human development. As children grow up, many factors influence their young lives. Mothers have a role in leading their children to grow up normally.

It is especially important for fathers to affirm their sons in their maleness and their daughters in their femininity. Parents must also ‘recruit-proof’ their children by safeguarding them from predatory males – and some females – in the outside world.

Parents should also be on their guard for materials in school sex education designed to groom children into acceptance of homosexuality.  The campaigning book ‘King and king’ is particularly pertinent here.

Identification with the aggressor

Tragically, many boys who would have grown up normally ended up in children’s homes in the recent past. There, firstly, pederast homosexuals got hold of them. Secondly, the boys identified with the aggressor. Look up ‘Stockholm Syndrome’. Thirdly, they grew up homosexual themselves, with the desire to repeat the pattern.

The inbuilt self-limitation of homosexuality is why gay men in particular have so many sexual partners. They are searching for affirmative maleness, but now sexualising it. They become involved in increasingly depraved sexual practice as they become immersed in the network. And, sorry Provost, but homosexual life is filled with more dirty boys than ‘fine young gentlemen’. That’s just the way it is. They are looking for what does not exist, a real man who will love a homosexual. And they are pressing a part of the anatomy perfectly designed for the extraction of water from bodily waste into a use our gracious Maker never intended.

Ex-gays in Corinth

But the good news is however anyone became gay they do not have to stay gay. Jesus Christ saves the lost, forgives their sin and transforms their lives. Christ can heal the underlying pathologies which arrested normal development. People, men and women, have walked away from the homosexual life and homosexual desires. Scripture says:

1Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Yes, there were ex-gays in the Corinthian church. But they were washed clean, sanctified and justified by the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus. Recognise also that the practice and thoughts of homosexuality can lay a person open to spiritual oppression. For some, healing may not be enough. Deliverance could be in order.

Prayer Warfare

Christian Voice members know how seldom we comment on matters to do with the church. As in ‘Never’. There are enough targets for prayer in government, commerce and the judiciary. So we shall not cast more aspersions than we have on Provost Holdsworth. The Lord knows his eternal destiny. Those leaving comments please respect this position as well. But firstly, his subject-matter has allowed us to set out the context. Secondly, we urgently need to invite the Lord’s people into a campaign of prayer warfare over this issue. Thirdly, we have been able to praise Rev Gavin Ashenden and the Bishop of Glasgow. They have made clear a prayer such as that of the Provost has no place in the Christian faith.

We should be comforted by these scriptures, from the book of Proverbs:

Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.  … 29 The LORD is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous.
Prov 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.
Prov 26:2 As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come.

Pushing at a open door

Equally, the Provost’s prayer, even as a wicked incantation, has undoubtedly set in motion something evil in the spiritual realm. However, in countering it, let us realise we are pushing at an open door. Twice in the last century the Lord took a bad man out of the way and placed a man of God upon the throne of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Both King George V and King George VI had elder brothers quite unsuited to leading this United Kingdom through a time of war. God took Prince Albert by pneumonia. Edward VIII renounced the throne for the love of divorced Mrs Wallis Simpson.

Moreover, very recently, the wedding of William and Kate set the Parliamentary feminists in a spin. What if their first-born was a girl and a son came second? He would take precedence over her under the ancient rules of primogeniture. That, said the feminists, was unfair. Nick Clegg MP, the Deputy Prime Minister, introduced a ‘Succession to the Crown’ Bill. It changed the rule that the eldest son of a monarch would succeed to the throne. The Bill became an Act of Parliament on 25th April 2013. From that date, the eldest royal child would be next in line, male or female.

Hand of God on Prince George

Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge with their children Prince George and Princess Charlotte. Look how intently the Duke is looking at Prince George. There will be no bad influences in this family, in Jesus's name.

Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge with their children Prince George and Princess Charlotte. Look how intently the Duke is looking at Prince George. There will be no bad influences in this family, in Jesus’s name.

And then, to confound them all, the Duchess of Cambridge, as she had become, gave birth to a boy. To the dismay of the feminists, the nation welcomed George not Georgina.

So we believe the hand of God is already on this princely child. The Lord will ensure George grows up normally. There will be no undue influences upon him.

God knows parents are raising all children today against a background of pro-sodomy state dogma.

Nevertheless, pray the Lord will safeguard George as his father affirms his masculinity in his formative years.

Prince George will progress into true manhood, in Jesus’s name.

Finally, thank God for Gavin Ashenden, for Susie Leafe and for Dr Gregor Duncan. We pray for unity in the church of Jesus Christ and that all in leadership will heed Paul’s word to Timothy:

2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Click on the links below to share this story:



Skip to comment form

  1. I was going to make points which are already made in your article, but they are worth repeating:
    1) If you can pray for somebody to be a homosexual, you can pray for somebody to be a heterosexual.
    2) If such prayers might work, then the claim that somebody is born a homosexual and can’t be changed must be invalid.

    3) Similar arguments probably hold for someone who is born unambiguously one gender, but claims to be “really” the other. Is there going to be a group of people praying for George to believe he is really a princess, and another group praying for him to come to his senses ? I suppose God would have to work out the rival merits of the prayers, as always when there are conflicts

    Incidentally, during the Second World War, George VI sat on the throne of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but during the First World War, George V sat on the throne of Great Britain and Ireland. You can’t be too careful with Ireland — they can be very touchy.

    1. ! & 2 of course.
      3 – A prayer for something opposed to the will of God will not be acted upon by the Almighty, but still might set other spiritual forces in motion. That is why I speak of ‘prayer warfare’ in the article. Although the expression is a short-cut. Our only offensive weapon is the word of God in scripture. Prayers are our communication system with the Commander! It’s a bit one way though, as all we can do is present our petitions. Rare are those who hear direct from the Throne room…

      1. Whereas King George V started the broadcasts from a royal residence to the whole nation, so that even the lowest of the lowly could hear him directly (thus inadvertently starting the slow destruction of royal mystique, to be exchanged for increased soap opera and celebrity).

        Somewhere in Heaven there must be some kind of vast switchboard, rerouting prayers to appropriate departments of the Divine heavenorcracy, staffed by saints and angels perhaps. I dont’ see how it could possibly work otherwise.

  2. The entry on this book in Wikipedia is mainly about its adventures in the USA, although there is a very brief mention of one Stephen Green of the UK, who is against it.

    This has now been remedied with an edited addition, as follows :

    “There does seem to be a particular problem in countries like the United Kingdom, where kings have a well-defined constitutional position. There is no provision for a king to be married to a “king consort”, and presumably the throne would pass after the homosexual king’s death to his nephew (or whoever is legally next in line), not to any adopted child of the homosexual marriage as the author of these books might like. To suggest it should be otherwise might be seen as treasonable. This is (as always) a very different matter from the USA, where kings and princesses are merely fantasy.”

    1. CENSORSHIP and threats from the Gay community over this. They will not allow that edited addition to remain, not in any form however reduced and mild (not even the mere assertion that the United Kingdom is a real kingdom!), claiming that “original research” is against Wikipedia rules, and that this amounts to “vandalism” to the article and indeed to Wikipedia. The penalty is permanent excommunication. It’s a wonder that anything ever gets written on Wikipedia these days. It may require “research” for an American to find out that the United Kingdom is a kingdom, but to us it amounts to inherent knowledge. Nor is Wikipedia in English an American website really. If you are Italian, there is a version in Italian (and so on), but English-speaking countries share the same material. The article on King & King is OVERWHELMINGLY about American views of it, and this really doesn’t seem fair. It seems to be no good telling them this (not the self-confessed lesbians who intervene, anyway) .

      1. Ta !

  3. I strongly obect to this ‘CURSE’ on young Prince George, this is satan at work. In light of this abomination,

    I I pray that .when the nation anthem is sung the word SAVE should be STRESSED !

    GOD SAVE all of us from secularism and ANTI CHRIST

    1. The National Anthem is about God saving the king or queen from his or her sins, not about saving us at all. Stressing the word “save” contrary to the rhythm of the music won’t make any difference to this.

      Similarly, the Lord’s Prayer is about God not letting us fall into temptation, not really about God not leading us into temptation,which he would not do. “Don’t let us fall into temptation; but on the contrary, save us from the Evil One and his temptations”. You have to take notice of the actual meaning of familiar words.

      1. God save the Queen is a prayer to God to save the Queen from all perils, not just sin, as I read it…

        1. Stephen is right as so often.

          The Old Testament has a story (slightly reminiscent of Cinderella) of a search for a king who meets the specifications, “and when he stood among the people, he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward.”

          ” And all the people shouted, and said, God save the king.”
          1 Samuel 10:24

          This is the first use of the phrase in the Bible, and the British use of it is no doubt a quotation of this.

          The hunt for a suitable king must have rung a bell with those who were hunting for a suitably qualified successor to Queen Anne, which was extremely difficult (it might have been the son of the Duke of Savoy, for example, who would have been brought up specially as an Anglican). No surprise, then that Handel later raids this part of the Bible for the coronation service : Zadok the Priest, God Save the King, and all. He continues “May the king live for ever”, which of course is flattering but is never going to happen.

          The Christian emphasis on being saved from sin comes later, I gather.

          BUT, nonetheless, it is about saving the king or queen, not about saving us all.

  4. To pray for someone to be a homosexual is not only incredibly STUPID but also pointless. There are certain types of prayer that God doesn’t answer, to ask God to do something that’s against His will is this type of prayer. God will never answer a prayer like that, it’s a waste of breath.

    1. Agreed, totally, Julian, and thanks for reminding us to pray according to the will of God.
      But as a curse this still needs our prayers for it to be revoked. Words have power. And this renegade provost has set something going in the spiritual realm which we must counter, with confidence in Almighty God who answers the prayers of the righteous.

  5. Hi, I understand where you’re coming from and I agree that we must pray to counter the enemy on this so that it doesn’t become a curse on Prince George’s life.

  6. Rox’s comment that adopted children of the Sovereign are excluded from the succession is correct. Any children born outside of wedlock are also excluded. Those who support gay-marriage will regard these rules as unfair to same sex couples and want them changed.
    As explained in the article, feminists have already persuaded the Government to change the rules so that an elder daughter precedes a younger son in the order of succession. We must pray that adopted and illegitimate children continue to be excluded regardless of the sexuality of their parents.

    1. I think the elder daugher preceding a younger son is a mistake, not because of any lofty theory, not really because the country doesn’t do well under a queen (in fact under Elizabeth I, Queen Anne, Queen Victoria, and the present queen it has done better than could be expected), but out of humanity for the poor woman trying to be a mother and a leader, usually to the consternation of her husband. If Prince Charles were to die before the Queen (which is very possible) and if he had no children, I’m absolutely certain that Princess Anne wouldn’t have the slightest desire to take on the job, but would be delighted to pass it to Prince Andrew if she was allowed to. Similarly, Princess Victoria was older than Edward VII. She married the future Kaiser Wilhelm, which she found difficult enough on its own. Need I say more ?

      Yes, he would have moved in here as Prince Consort of the British Empire for 14 years, and then taken over the German Empire as well. I suppose there would never have been any opportunity for Hitler after that ! Remember that poor Mary I married Philip of Spain, not a good idea either.

      1. IMPORTANT CORRECTION. Princess Victoria married the future Kaiser Friedrich III, and Kaiser Wilhelm II was their SON. But Friedrich died only 99 days after becoming kaiser, so Wilhelm took over in 1888. His mother died seven months after the death of Queen Victoria’ (“As per her instructions her corpse was stripped naked, wrapped in the Union Jack and buried according to the rites of the Church of England”. Wikipedia).

        Under the laws we have now, she would have been Queen Victoria II of England for seven months, and succeeded by William II of Germany and V of England. It wouldn’t have been easy, but it might have been for the best, I suppose. This new United Kingdom (with its empire) would have been much too powerful to be challenged by France or anybody else. This would presumably have saved millions of lives.

        1. Ah, ‘could have’ and ‘would have’… Christians live in the here and now.

  7. Do they ?

    One Christian wrote on this website recently :
    “Jesus is coming again and will rule the earth from Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, if not the capital of the earth.”
    and there is plenty similar .

    Non-Christians are only concerned with the realistic near future in that region, while being prepared to learn from history and to speculate on what might happen in the future. The same is true of drawing on history in general.

    If Prince George had been a girl and eventually married a Spanish prince, we might find ourselves finally in the same position as with Philip and Mary (cut short by Mary’s childless death and the succession of Elilzabeth I ). If Spain stubbornly remained in the EU, I dread to think what complications that would bring !

    1. We are where we are. You do too many, ‘If’s’, if I may be so bold.

      1. So following Trump’s announcement, fighting has broken out in Palestine.

        1. Genesis 16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 17 December 2017 at 19:48

            That’s not Trump, because every man’s hand is not against him. He had enough followers to be elected president of the USA, and apparently a terrible number of them (I nearly said good number) still support him.

            In the Revised English Bible, this is wild ass rather than wild man.
            Not “dwell”, but “live at odds with” .

            However, and I think this is quite an important point, it doesn’t apply to Trump, but to Ishmael , the son of Abraham and Hagar, his slave-girl. I suppose you are trying to prove that fighting in Palestine will always be the fault of the Palestinian side and nobody else. This isn’t very impartial, and doesn’t give them much chance.

            Looking at the nations of the Middle East (or even much further afield), surely “every man’s hand against him” applies better to Israel ?

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 24 December 2017 at 00:10

            You could interpret the recent vote in the United Nations as proving that every man’s hand is against Israel, except of course in a scattering of tiny states, frightened of Trump, which few people (even, or particularly, few Americans) could point to on the map.

        2. As so often now in our topsy-turvy world, Trump is blamed for the outbreaks of violence, as it appears you do, Rox. No-one in our wonderful impartial media mentions that it just may be the fault of the rioting members of the religion of peace themselves. Just how long do we have to kow-tow to these people, with their threats of violence if we do anything that they consider offensive etc? Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and that is therefore where foreign embassies should be situated: the muslims only want Jerusalem beause the Jews do.

          In a similar vein, Trump was roundly criticised for re-tweeting some Britain First videos, there was even an emergency debate in the House of Commons in which our wonderful MPs, of all parties, fell over themselves in their apoplexy in denouncing Trump. Quentin Letts appropriately called it “The Outrage Olympics”. No-one sought fit to mention the videos themselves, as they sought to out-do each other with their denounciations of Trump and Britain First, which showed factual examples of not unusual muslim violence: as so often these days, they preferred to shoot the messenger,

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 20 December 2017 at 23:51

            Quite a few people have looked at the videos themselves much more carefully than Mark has, if he thinks that they show “factual examples of not unusual Muslim violence” ! Neither the disabled Dutchman who was beaten up, nor his sister (who videoed the crime), nor the Dutch police, have ever suggested that the aggressor was a Muslim, and they have come forward to point this out ! Two no doubt learnèd bearded Muslims discuss in Arabic a large china statuette of the Virgin Mary which they are holding, no doubt condemning the veneration of such idols in the kind of terms which many Protestants would have done over the centuries. They then drop it on the floor, and predictably it breaks. The effect of this is more comic than violent. There is no visual suggestion that it might have been looted, so the video is even funnier if one imagines them going out and buying it so that they could solemnly destroy it in front of the camera. I am too soft-hearted to have watched the third video myself, but it is said to be violence of Muslim against Muslim during a civil war, no different from Christian against Christian in civil wars in America or Europe, really. Of course I would join in denouncing Trump for rebroadcasting this material in this way, especially the fraudulent propaganda which exploited the suffering of the injured Dutchman.

            But Trump is Trump. Wouldn’t Mark be a little surprised if any British prime minister, or a President of France, or a Chancellor of Germany, retweeted Ku Klux Klan propaganda ?

            • BigMarktheGeezer
            • Mark J on 21 December 2017 at 11:42

            Rox: “Wouldn’t Mark be a little surprised if any British prime minister, or a President of France, or a Chancellor of Germany, retweeted Ku Klux Klan propaganda?”

            Depends if the videos contained facts or not. The person being thrown off the roof was a homosexual, a punishment prescribed in the koran (I’m not going to argue with you, Rox, over the “correct” interpretation of the koran, save to say that this punishment, and others like it, is believed to accord with muslim teachings by something between 25 and 70% of the world’s muslims: whatever, a large number. The “moderate” muslims are the ones standing around and watching, afraid to do anything, if indeed they disagree with it, because if they intervene, they’ll be next).

            Muslim violence is widespead, probably always has been, and is increasing as we acquiesce and try to appease it (they see appeasement was weakness, and despise us even more): but Rox will deny all this, preferring to obfuscate and say it was just what “Christians” used to do in the past (despite their Lord’s admonition to not commit violence: thus no true Christian wil commit violence).

            I’m pretty much done with arguing with you, Rox, you are either stupid, or (wilfully?) blind, as many are, to the dangers of islam (I said “islam” not “muslims”, many of whom are victims themselves of islam), sticking your heads in the sand. Islam is simply incompatible with Western democracy: either one goes or the other. You are clearly not born-again, and since the “knowledge of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”, I suppose we can expect little more, from you or most, it would seem, inhabitants of the West. As we continue to decline, in our decadence etc, islam is waiting to step in and take over and is making great strides, aided by a blind West, especially our “leaders”: there is a growing anger amongst many of the populace who don’t want islam: will this translate into direct action/civil war? You won’t like it very much when they finally take over, which may not be far away: your secular humanism is not strong enough to resist it. We already have muslim mayors in many British cities, and the muslim vote is now an important voting bloc (the wonderful Ed Miliband (do we get the leaders we deserve?) at a recent election, wanted to criminalise criticism of islam (sorry, “islamophobia”) to secure their votes).

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 21 December 2017 at 15:36

            Nonetheless, neither the disabled Dutchman who was beaten up, nor his sister (who videoed the crime), nor the Dutch police, have ever suggested that the aggressor was a Muslim, and they have come forward to point this out !

            This has got nothing to do with being wilfully blind to the dangers of Islam. I may not have been born so often as Mark, but I can see that Britain First and President Trump are not supplying the world with “factual videos”. Even if a Muslim produced a video of a Christian dropping some porcelain artwork on the floor, I wouldn’t consider that proof of widespread Christian violence either. I didn’t realise that Mark was keen on homosexuals, but I accept that he would not throw them off roofs. Very few Muslims throw homosexuals off roofs, actually, but I haven’t got any figures for it. I would suspect that in the UK it was close to 0% of the Muslim population who do it.

            Actually, my own response to my question about European leaders doesn’t depend on if the videos contained facts or not. It would be very possible for the Ku Klux Klan to obtain footage of real black people committing real violent crimes (much more effective than falsely ascribing Islam to people committing an unrelated crime, or showing religious enthusiasts peacefully smashing some ceramics to illustrate a point). But I would be very surprised if Theresa May or President Macron used the Ku Klux Klan report to pass on a message about black crime, and the German Chancellor would most certainly do no such thing.

  8. I was so sad and cross when I heard on the radio what this Provost had said about our young prince. What a wicked thing to ask for, I hope he repents of what he said.

Leave a Reply