Queens Speech

Morning Yammy.

Its not everyone else.

Sorry GSM but its all starting to sound a bit desperate.

No, no, no, that's not what's happening, everything's fine, its just a temporary thing.

Reading the Queen's Speech is a formal thing that can only be done by certain people with certain roles. The last time the Queen couldn't do it, it was the Lord Chancellor that did it I think. This time Charles is doing it as Counsellor of State. The Queen is no longer able to fulfil the tasks she is obliged to perform. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's true.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

‘Ageing monarchs not a really good look ‘

You have shocked me maddy

Cross post maddyone!!!

No it isn’t what she’s doing Oak Dryad. She’s simply getting Prince Charles to stand in when it suits her on an informal basis whilst continuing to hold the reins very firmly.

That's interesting OakDryad I did read somewhere yesterday that the Counsellors of State are Charles, Andrew, William and Harry.

Poor old soul is in a bind, isn't she?

OakDryad your informative post makes me more certain than ever that we need a republic. The counsellors of State include both Prince Andrew and Prince Harry, neither of whom are in a position to contribute, and neither of whom are likely to be acceptable to the public.

Actually volver I think you make good points. We are set to be represented by a long line of ageing monarchs. Not a good look. So perhaps it will make a difference. Now I’m unsure.

It is my understanding of the Regency Act 1937 that the Sovereign cannot appoint a regent:

Regency during total incapacity of the Sovereign

If the following persons or any three or more of them, that is to say, the wife or husband of the Sovereign, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and the Master of the Rolls, declare in writing that they are satisfied by evidence which shall include the evidence of physicians that the Sovereign is by reason of infirmity of mind or body incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions or that they are satisfied by evidence that the Sovereign is for some definite cause not available for the performance of those functions, then, until it is declared in like manner that His Majesty has so far recovered His health as to warrant His resumption of the royal functions or has become available for the performance thereof, as the case may be, those functions shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a Regent.

The Sovereign does have power to delegate royal functions to Counsellors of State:

Power to delegate royal functions to Counsellors of State

In the event of illness not amounting to such infirmity of mind or body as is mentioned in section two of this Act ... the Sovereign may, in order to prevent delay or difficulty in the despatch of public business, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal, delegate, for the period of that illness or absence, to Counsellors of State such of the royal functions as may be specified in the Letters Patent, and may in like manner revoke or vary any such delegation …

… the Counsellors of State shall be the wife or husband of the Sovereign (if the Sovereign is married), and the four persons who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, are next in the line of succession to the Crown …

… which is what The Queen is doing.

We want our money’s worth volver! (Only joking.)?

Wow - a flurry of cross posts

The Queen and her advisers need to accept she can’t do the job now. I think Whitewave is correct when she says she’s too stubborn. She is also correct in saying it won’t make any difference whether she stays or goes. Prince Charles will do whatever needs to be done. However in that case he at least should be appointed regent.
Preferably we’d become a republic, but that won’t happen in my lifetime in my opinion.

Her vow was that her whole life would be dedicated to our service. I don’t think she is now capable of doing that in its fullest sense. Just looking through whatever papers she receives, rubber stamping Bills and doing zoom calls isn’t serving the country. She has said herself that she needs to be seen. That seems to be a thing of the past. I totally get it at her great age, but quite simply she is no longer up to the job (who would be at 96?) and I wish she would accept that.

Frankly it won’t make a particle of difference to the U.K. whether she goes or stays.

I think it does though WWM2. When the Queen came to the throne she was young and energetic, and as a representative of this country at home and abroad she projected an image of the country we wanted to be.

Now she's old. The next Head of State will be old from the minute he takes office. The next one after that will be at least, what ... mid sixties?

The country now is represented by a long line of old people. Charles is still waiting to get started on his job and he is 74 years old! That's clearly why the powers-that-be are pushing K&W to the front now, even though W won't be head of state for 25 years at least.

Being Head of State is not just turning up and waving or handing out honours. The Queen's fabled promise was to be of service to the people. What service is she being to us now?

It’s not stubbornness is it? The Queen is keeping the promise she made the nation all those years ago which we are all perfectly well aware of.
The fact that the announcement not to appear was made relatively last minute does indicate to me that she was hoping to be able to attend.
In many ways it’s no different to anyone who is dealing with a health problem - they might very much hope to attend a specific event, but won’t know how they feel until much nearer the time.

I suspect that it is time she threw in the towel, but perhaps is too stubborn to do so.

Frankly it won’t make a particle of difference to the U.K. whether she goes or stays.

No point in making an issue of it.

If she is like my mother who died at 101, there will be nothing wrong with her brain, - still very aware and astute, but very frail which means any exertion is both difficult and exhausting.

It’s called very old age.

Part of the human condition, if you are lucky enough to live that long.

Why can't the Queen be carried in on a sedan chair by four footmen? That's what would have happened back in the day!

She might not want to be seen in public with mobility issues but reading the speech at the state opening of parliament is one of her important constitutional duties. I strongly suspect that this leaving everyone guessing until the last minute then deciding she can’t do it is symptomatic of agoraphobia or anxiety, maybe brought on by covid and not helped by mobility issues - a fear of falling in public must be terrible for someone in her position. I have every sympathy but if this is the case then she really should consider at least appointing Prince Charles regent. She’s done her bit wonderfully well over many years but it’s now time to face facts I think. It worries me that she renewed her vow to the country very recently and I really don’t see her stepping down unfortunately.

vegansrock

I’m not sure why the queen’s health is “ none of our business” when we expect photos of all the family , including children, at every opportunity, and we pay for their lifestyle, keep them in crown jewels and fur robes. You can’t have it both ways. She is an unelected Head of State who is unable to fulfil her role- we should know why. We know she is of a great age when anyone would be frail and need assistance to do many tasks. Why not come out and say so or just retire gracefully?

Exactly vegansrock. The royal family appear to want it both ways, the waving crowds and the interest in every engagement from the public, but the absolute privacy and ability to hide behind palace walls (Prince Andrew) when it suits them.
The Queen is no longer able to fulfil her role, she needs to hand over to Charles. It is said the royal family are there (in place) by consent. This consent may rapidly wane in the present circumstances. We are spending millions on celebrating the jubilee of a monarch who cannot perform the most important of her very few duties.

I think that the term episodic mobility issues is being used as a euphemism for a broader spectrum of issues that go with advanced old age. Mobility issues per se can be sorted but if you add into the mix a bit of cardiovascular issue like atrial fibrillation, again not uncommon at the Queen's age it becomes much more of a problem. One of the symptoms is unpleasant dizzy spells so it would be understandable why she wouldn't want to appear at such a public occasion. This would be my gut instinct (before anyone falls on me demanding evidence) and I don't see that the public needs any more information than that which the Palace has given us.

If she can't do her job because of her health, then we need to know. Speculation along the lines of she might have bone cancer is just distasteful, especially on a social media site like this. If she's ill, then she's ill. If she's just old, then she's just old. If we didn't treat her like the mother of the nation then we wouldn't think talking about her private issues was acceptable.

I think the Palace ought to give a bit more clarity, then people wouldn’t speculate so much. ‘Episodic mobility issues’ means nothing really. Have you ever heard anyone else being diagnosed with that? No, thought not.

It makes you think it’s something serious, otherwise why not say she has severe osteoporosis or arthritis or similar?

Looking back to the Duchess of Cambridge’s pregnancies, they had to say why she was in hospital, with severe morning sickness. And why not? That ended the questions.

I know privacy around health issues is important, but when you’re the Queen, it’s a bit different surely.

I’m another who thinks we will hear more after the Jubilee.

Perhaps she is just so pi**ed off at Johnson and Partygate - especially on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral- that she wants nothing to do with him?