The Queen is 96 years old. Her husband just died. Maybe you could cut her some slack. Comparing her today to 30 years ago is unfair. As it would be for any 96 year old.
Isn’t she 95? I agree with the author – compare the dreadful opening of Parliament speech with her ‘we’ll meet again’ COVID speech, which was perfectly written and delivered. Surely the government could have come up with a better speech.
You are ignoring the fact the at 95 years old she is still working even after her husband died. Spaffing off about she looks unhappy because of the speech is very odd position indeed. There is a world beyond the Westminster pundits.
The term “delivery” is about her, not the speech. All I’m saying is let’s give her a break as to her delivery and looking unhappy. Fair game if you disagree.
Totally agree. To say her “heart was’t in it” is very cruel. If anyone thinks they sound the same at 95 or 96 as they did in their 60s, they are kidding themselves. The Queen is working in her 90s soon after the death of her husband. I find it truly amazing and she should be recognized for her love of country and attention to duty.
At least they didn’t make her do a high five or read it in rap, which I’m sure some of the younger lot might have considered a wonderfully inclusive thing to do.
The article wasn’t criticising the Queen but the quality and language of the speech she was given to read. The title ‘Give the Queen a break’ makes that clear.
Not correct. This
“which she read glumly from a pamphlet with a brief upward glance at her audience but not even the hint of a twinkle.” Is criticizing the Queen. Not enough “twinkle” apparently at 95 and recently widowed. She really should have done better, eh?
And then here
“Contrast, for instance, her winning address to the joint session of congress 30 years ago this week.” In which she apparently satisfied the author with her “respectful sincerity” while today the author says she seems “cross”.
And then here “looked mightily fed up.” This is also about her, not the speech.
If the article is about the speech itself, it should not have focused on the Queen being “glum”, “cross”, “fed up” and not having enough “twinkle” but rather on the speech. Such an article could have been written. This wasn’t it.
Anyone with a modicum of taste would have been “glum” or even “fed up” if obliged to recite such bilge in public. Even Gielgud or Burton would have lost their faith if assigned such lines.
wasn’t the original though was it….Is the Queen a political puppet?, was
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
“Net zero greenhouse gas emissions” was delivered in such a way as to allow us to imagine her wondering privately, “Who writes this shit?”
Perfectly put Sir!
Incidentally was it really necessary for her to be ‘masked’ at her husband’s funeral & previously on Remembrance Day?
Indeed. I watched in sad horror as she sat alone at the funeral, without the comfort of her family at her side. My mate wished that she had brought along the Queen’s Guard to escort her, her children and grandchildren into the hall, maskless, brushing aside anyone who objected.
Charles that quote is rather a lovely reminder of how magnificent our Elizabeths have been. Any future Queen Elizabeth will have a tough act to follow.
Which is silly when everyone around you has been vaccinated.
Gordon Black
3 years ago
Yes, The Queen is just a political puppet … in the same way as: a flag is just a piece of cloth: a cross is just a couple of straight lines: a Koran is just some bits of paper: a swastika is a simple bit of Indian abstract art. This writer has total ignorance as to what a Constitutional Monarchy is. Look it up, educate yourself, and especially compare countries with this system to others.
Bilge. The country is fundamentally run by the poor and not terribly bright. Their chosen representatives have to try to make sense of what the mass of voters require
And harking back to the festal Crown-Wearing of mediaeval English monarchs
Mike Boosh
3 years ago
What a strange premise for an article. Of course she’s a political puppet and she always has been! If she wasn’t, what would be the point of voting for a government that could be overruled on a whim by a hereditary monarch? Seems like a flimsy setup for a piece about the weirdness of language in political speeches.
She might be a political puppet in the UK, but seems she intervened with efet in Australian political affairs in 1975.
David Platzer
3 years ago
“56 mobile coverage and gigabit capable broadband” is in a foreign language and barely understandable. Whatever Boris may be, he is a classicist and a former editor of the Spectator who should give the Queen a more approachable script to read.
William Murphy
3 years ago
There was the classic Private Eye cover of Her Majesty delivering her speech to Parliament, with her speech bubble declaring: “I hope you realise that I don’t write this garbage”.
How the Royals expect to survive when they are visibly political stooges….maybe it is a function of how far we are willing to collectively suspend disbelief. Laying off the COVID shite (anti vaxxers are Selfish!!) and not quoting Vera Lynn might help.
Last edited 3 years ago by William Murphy
Tim Hurren
3 years ago
This article made me laugh out loud. Brilliant commentary with more than a grain of truth. I think the Queen would be very amused and would no doubt agree with just about every word. Have the powers that be at Unherd thought about giving her a free honorary subscription?
David Foot
3 years ago
Our nation’s greatness, our “tank” was filled mostly by our Monarchs in Privy Council with long term views, I am sure that as a nation we would be much better off if the Monarch did more of the rulling than what Her Majesty does at present.
The curve of the power of the House of Commons tells us very clearly that the more power to the House of Commons, the more common we become. What we were going to get from a Labour House of Commons was Corbyn 19, there is no vaccine for that. It would have been terminal, that could have sent England to before the Tudors and even without a Sovereign.
Stuart Y
3 years ago
Is it just me or has the title of this piece changed somewhat, to when it was originally published? If so in my view kudos to whoever changed it from the insulting original.
Steve Gwynne
3 years ago
Maybe she has actually taken the time to read the section, levelling up within
It is clear that British monarchy is past its sell by date. I know that many will throw their toys’ out of the cot. But it is clear she too appears to be at the behest of the NWO oligarchs. They want her money too, she just doesn’t realise that.
She is prepared to sell the country to the NWO Globalists, that is clear by her actions and compliance to read a speech that is written for her by them to direct at the citizens. Did she not read the speech beforehand. Maybe she watches the BBC and believes the propaganda of climate change and covid.
If I am wrong then the needs to get rid of her advisors they are leading her down the Schwab WEF road of suicide for her and the country.
Alan Thorpe
3 years ago
I agree entirely. The farce of the constitutional monarchy was even more apparent this year. She couldn’t even be bothered to get out her best car, let alone a coach. I cannot accept a Head of State who is a complete mystery. We have no idea what she thinks about anything except for horses, corgis, and picnics. I don’t know how she lives with reading out the crap from our governments year after year, but then I might do the same if I had her privileged life in return. But if levelling up works as she has promised we will soon all have a castle in thousands of acres with servants on hand – this must be the new normal Boris talks about. I suspect it will be levelling down for most of us.
Let’s hope she reads this piece and next time she might start with “This is the rubbish from the government that you fools elected”.
We gain financially from the royals-they give us the money from the Crown lands and we pay their expenses. It was an arrangement agreed in the 18th century. Having to go out every day to what are probably rather boring functions can’t be much fun and I wish the Queen could retire to spend her time with ‘horses , corgis and picnics’-she deserves it.
The Queen is 96 years old. Her husband just died. Maybe you could cut her some slack. Comparing her today to 30 years ago is unfair. As it would be for any 96 year old.
Isn’t she 95? I agree with the author – compare the dreadful opening of Parliament speech with her ‘we’ll meet again’ COVID speech, which was perfectly written and delivered. Surely the government could have come up with a better speech.
You are ignoring the fact the at 95 years old she is still working even after her husband died. Spaffing off about she looks unhappy because of the speech is very odd position indeed. There is a world beyond the Westminster pundits.
Should have been more specific – the thing I agreed with the author about was that the speech was tripe.
The term “delivery” is about her, not the speech. All I’m saying is let’s give her a break as to her delivery and looking unhappy. Fair game if you disagree.
Totally agree. To say her “heart was’t in it” is very cruel. If anyone thinks they sound the same at 95 or 96 as they did in their 60s, they are kidding themselves. The Queen is working in her 90s soon after the death of her husband. I find it truly amazing and she should be recognized for her love of country and attention to duty.
At least they didn’t make her do a high five or read it in rap, which I’m sure some of the younger lot might have considered a wonderfully inclusive thing to do.
The article wasn’t criticising the Queen but the quality and language of the speech she was given to read. The title ‘Give the Queen a break’ makes that clear.
Not correct. This
“which she read glumly from a pamphlet with a brief upward glance at her audience but not even the hint of a twinkle.” Is criticizing the Queen. Not enough “twinkle” apparently at 95 and recently widowed. She really should have done better, eh?
And then here
“Contrast, for instance, her winning address to the joint session of congress 30 years ago this week.” In which she apparently satisfied the author with her “respectful sincerity” while today the author says she seems “cross”.
And then here
“looked mightily fed up.” This is also about her, not the speech.
If the article is about the speech itself, it should not have focused on the Queen being “glum”, “cross”, “fed up” and not having enough “twinkle” but rather on the speech. Such an article could have been written. This wasn’t it.
Anyone with a modicum of taste would have been “glum” or even “fed up” if obliged to recite such bilge in public. Even Gielgud or Burton would have lost their faith if assigned such lines.
You are aware that her husband just died, aren’t you?
5 hours ago the title was ‘Is the Queen a political puppet?’ which clearly was criticising the Queen and after the first few comments was ameliorated.
wasn’t the original though was it….Is the Queen a political puppet?, was
“Net zero greenhouse gas emissions” was delivered in such a way as to allow us to imagine her wondering privately, “Who writes this shit?”
Perfectly put Sir!
Incidentally was it really necessary for her to be ‘masked’ at her husband’s funeral & previously on Remembrance Day?
Indeed. I watched in sad horror as she sat alone at the funeral, without the comfort of her family at her side. My mate wished that she had brought along the Queen’s Guard to escort her, her children and grandchildren into the hall, maskless, brushing aside anyone who objected.
Yes, this was abusive in my view to make her avoid her family and be masked sitting alone.
Yes, a terrible example of the way we are now!
I couldn’t help thinking of the previous Elizabeth’s speech at Tilbury all those years ago:-
“I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too”.
Charles that quote is rather a lovely reminder of how magnificent our Elizabeths have been. Any future Queen Elizabeth will have a tough act to follow.
Totally agree! Charles always come up with the appropriate historical reference!
I suspect she thought “Who wrote this bilge?” rather than the four-letter word, She uses words closer to Wodehouse than to Kenneth Tynan.
The honour of using the four letter word is Mr Leiths’s not mine.
A sad state of affairs.
Obviously not, but Her M was sitting an example to us all to wear ours
Which is silly when everyone around you has been vaccinated.
Yes, The Queen is just a political puppet … in the same way as: a flag is just a piece of cloth: a cross is just a couple of straight lines: a Koran is just some bits of paper: a swastika is a simple bit of Indian abstract art. This writer has total ignorance as to what a Constitutional Monarchy is. Look it up, educate yourself, and especially compare countries with this system to others.
E
A permanent state of control by rich elites.
Bilge. The country is fundamentally run by the poor and not terribly bright. Their chosen representatives have to try to make sense of what the mass of voters require
And harking back to the festal Crown-Wearing of mediaeval English monarchs
What a strange premise for an article. Of course she’s a political puppet and she always has been! If she wasn’t, what would be the point of voting for a government that could be overruled on a whim by a hereditary monarch? Seems like a flimsy setup for a piece about the weirdness of language in political speeches.
The title of the article has changed since I wrote this, in case you’re reading it late in the day and wondering what I’m on about.
She might be a political puppet in the UK, but seems she intervened with efet in Australian political affairs in 1975.
“56 mobile coverage and gigabit capable broadband” is in a foreign language and barely understandable. Whatever Boris may be, he is a classicist and a former editor of the Spectator who should give the Queen a more approachable script to read.
There was the classic Private Eye cover of Her Majesty delivering her speech to Parliament, with her speech bubble declaring: “I hope you realise that I don’t write this garbage”.
How the Royals expect to survive when they are visibly political stooges….maybe it is a function of how far we are willing to collectively suspend disbelief. Laying off the COVID shite (anti vaxxers are Selfish!!) and not quoting Vera Lynn might help.
This article made me laugh out loud. Brilliant commentary with more than a grain of truth. I think the Queen would be very amused and would no doubt agree with just about every word. Have the powers that be at Unherd thought about giving her a free honorary subscription?
Our nation’s greatness, our “tank” was filled mostly by our Monarchs in Privy Council with long term views, I am sure that as a nation we would be much better off if the Monarch did more of the rulling than what Her Majesty does at present.
The curve of the power of the House of Commons tells us very clearly that the more power to the House of Commons, the more common we become. What we were going to get from a Labour House of Commons was Corbyn 19, there is no vaccine for that. It would have been terminal, that could have sent England to before the Tudors and even without a Sovereign.
Is it just me or has the title of this piece changed somewhat, to when it was originally published? If so in my view kudos to whoever changed it from the insulting original.
Maybe she has actually taken the time to read the section, levelling up within
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/build-back-better-our-plan-for-growth/build-back-better-our-plan-for-growth-html#levelling-up
It is clear that British monarchy is past its sell by date. I know that many will throw their toys’ out of the cot. But it is clear she too appears to be at the behest of the NWO oligarchs. They want her money too, she just doesn’t realise that.
She is prepared to sell the country to the NWO Globalists, that is clear by her actions and compliance to read a speech that is written for her by them to direct at the citizens. Did she not read the speech beforehand. Maybe she watches the BBC and believes the propaganda of climate change and covid.
If I am wrong then the needs to get rid of her advisors they are leading her down the Schwab WEF road of suicide for her and the country.
I agree entirely. The farce of the constitutional monarchy was even more apparent this year. She couldn’t even be bothered to get out her best car, let alone a coach. I cannot accept a Head of State who is a complete mystery. We have no idea what she thinks about anything except for horses, corgis, and picnics. I don’t know how she lives with reading out the crap from our governments year after year, but then I might do the same if I had her privileged life in return. But if levelling up works as she has promised we will soon all have a castle in thousands of acres with servants on hand – this must be the new normal Boris talks about. I suspect it will be levelling down for most of us.
Let’s hope she reads this piece and next time she might start with “This is the rubbish from the government that you fools elected”.
We gain financially from the royals-they give us the money from the Crown lands and we pay their expenses. It was an arrangement agreed in the 18th century. Having to go out every day to what are probably rather boring functions can’t be much fun and I wish the Queen could retire to spend her time with ‘horses , corgis and picnics’-she deserves it.