Queens Speech

It is possible she wants to do it. She is particularly unwilling to give up the key constitutional events a monarch is associated with., although she has when necessary.

The Queen is HM, not HRH.

DH and I have just been discussing this, actually. There are actually very few constitutional duties for our monarch, but delivering the Queen's Speech is one of them. If she can't do it, then why is she persisting in the post?

It’s just reading out a speech written by the government. It doesn’t matter who reads it, the content would be the same.

We don’t need a monarch.

Volver in answer because she is Queen. It’s not a role you are appointed to. It is something you are born into and is normally cradle to the grave so it is not a post as such. Constitutionally Charles can’t just grab the reins, much as he may like to. It’s up to her maj. that’s the way it works.

I know how it works.

I am just pointing out that whether she likes being the Queen or not, there are responsibilities that come with the role. And she can (possibly) no longer fulfil them.

So some people think that's OK, and some people think we should have someone in the role that can fulfil the duties.

Telling dissenters that they don't understand how it works is becoming quite widespread and is definitely quite contemptuous. Most of us know how it works, we'd like to change it though.

I think it’s rather pathetic seeing a failing Queen clinging on when she is clearly struggling.
If she doesn’t abdicate soon Charles will be similar when he comes to power.

Abolish the monarchy

twitter.com/jaymcc66/status/1523263691478941698?s=20&t=LUxD_xeD6XVpemrW5Aj-Fg

Well I support the Queen and think she's done a wonderful job over all the years. I really don't like the way this post is going and some of the nasty comment about her. Shameful.

Volver I am sorry if I have offended you. The point I was making is that unless it gets changed constitutionally we are stuck with the system. The Queen stays on if she wants to. That isn’t to say it is right. We have never had a monarch rule for so long and she is showing signs of old age. I suppose since it’s only a nominal position the government won’t want to change the constitution, at the moment anyway. More people are asking what the point of it all is, but others say it should be kept. I agree it is rather pathetic to see the Queen struggling but it’s her choice - at the moment anyway.

The Queen took a solemn binding oath when she became Queen and she regards giving her speech at Parliament as her duty. This is perfectly understandable and commendable, but there are those who delight in using any excuse to attack the monarchy, among other institutions, for the simple pleasure in upsetting those who hold them dear.

Oh Grany, how tiresome you are. We know what you think. Some of us disagree, some of us agree. There’s no need to keep repeating it..

Can't she do it on video link? It doesn't even have to be live.

"I'm sorry I can't be with you today to join in the party but this is what Boris wants me to say ......"

Anyone could read it out it’s not as if she’d written it.

Grany
Take some Rennies ......

25Avalon

Volver I am sorry if I have offended you. The point I was making is that unless it gets changed constitutionally we are stuck with the system. The Queen stays on if she wants to. That isn’t to say it is right. We have never had a monarch rule for so long and she is showing signs of old age. I suppose since it’s only a nominal position the government won’t want to change the constitution, at the moment anyway. More people are asking what the point of it all is, but others say it should be kept. I agree it is rather pathetic to see the Queen struggling but it’s her choice - at the moment anyway.

That's OK 25Avalon, I'm not offended, just exasperated.

I know how it works. I just don't thing that we should stick with something forever just because "that's how it works". I think you agree. Questioning the status quo isn't consigning the past to the dustbin. Its not being nasty to the dear old Queen. Its just saying the we're in the 21st Century now, and things might have to change, because the country has changed.

nasty comments . * for the simple pleasure in upsetting those who hold them dear*

I feel this is overreacting to posters who just feel that the queen has held on too long. That is not being “nasty”. I know all about the solemn oath argument but I do feel it would have been kind to step down,( possibly even as late as when Philip did so they could have some time together relaxing) and let Charles have a shot at things.

Volver.. kind of crossed posts sorry.

The Queen's speech is more than just her reading out what the government has told her to.

The whole event is about the different parts of the government coming together and the responsibilities of the various parts of that government. Hence the Black Rod bit, and all that. The symbolism is about the Commons, Lords and the monarchy all being together in the same place.

It's not that the Queen regards reading the speech out as her duty, it IS her duty. We are right to expect it from her and if she can't do it, and will never be able to do it in the future, then she needs to reconsider her position.

So the "but you don't understand" complaint could be used here too, back at those who think this is just a way of getting at royalty. It's important. It's the way we do things. If we can't do it, then things have to change.

I'm with those who think the queen should give up now with honour. Put very well in Lucca's 3rd para.

I also wonder, though, whether the 'mobility issues' are more serious than is said and that she is in fact failing very fast.

Victoria had a very long reign, but didn’t do much in ‘Queenly’ duties after Albert died, best part of 40 years I imagine.

Did people want her to abdicate in favour of her son? Compared to her great great grandmother, QE11 has done pretty well.

I would have thought the Queen’s Speech could be done by video link. It’s not as if she has lost her powers of speech.

The way forward maybe?

Did people want her to abdicate in favour of her son?

No, they wanted a republic.

But by the mid-1860s her ministers – and even her own children – were becoming frantic at her continued retreat from pubic view and her dogged refusal to take part in any form of public ceremonial. Anti-monarchical feeling was growing, with regular complaints that Victoria did nothing to justify her income from the Civil List. All Albert’s hard work over 20 years in educating his wife in her performance of duty was now being dangerously undermined.

By the end of the 1860s discontent escalated into outright republican challenges and calls for Victoria’s abdication.

www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/prince-albert-the-death-that-rocked-the-monarchy/

I am increasingly convinced that many of those on the side of the monarchy have actually no comprehension of how we got here today.

Sorry about the typo. Public view, obviously!!

Those who want a republic may get President Johnson