My government will achieve triangulation and synegry in its key competencies

November 30, 2003 9:28 PM

Was the Queen's Speech Too Political? The Queen's speech at the state opening of Parliament is entirely written by 10 Downing Street. But is it appropriate for Her Majesty to talk like a Blairite? (Full text)
posted by rschram (12 comments total)

She probably didn't even realize what she was saying, being distracted and distraught over her flamingoes.
posted by homunculus at 9:41 PM on November 30, 2003

The speech has always had the 'voice' of the incumbent government. It's just that the particular jargon of NewLabourSpeak is so distinctive (see Simon Hoggart sketches passimon 'this frightful drivel, this grim gallimaufry of cliches, jargon and outright lies') that it sticks out like a sore arse. And I did laugh when the Queen let her thoughts on the 3.25 at Cheltenham get the better of her and said 'National Hunt' instead of 'National Health Service'.
posted by riviera at 10:06 PM on November 30, 2003

Isn't it the whole point of being Queen that she can do whatever the hell she wants?
posted by gyc at 10:08 PM on November 30, 2003

Isn't it the whole point of being Queen that she can do whatever the hell she wants?

That's what Charles I thought.
posted by riviera at 10:21 PM on November 30, 2003

"My Government will take forward work on an incremental approach to a national identify cards scheme will publish a draft Bill in the new year."

Huh???
posted by zeoslap at 11:36 PM on November 30, 2003

The point is she shouldn't be speaking at all, it is a continuing disgrace that she has anything at all to do with government in the UK.
posted by johnny novak at 12:48 AM on December 1, 2003

The point that if she is there (as a Monarch) she is their as the sovereign of the people. She should not be able to speak independently of the people, because she should embody us.

Fuck all chance of that normally, so even if she's talking shit, as long as it's shit channelled from someone who is democratically elected, then hey, whoopie do!
posted by boneybaloney at 1:21 AM on December 1, 2003

The point that if she is there (as a Monarch) she is there as the sovereign of the people. She should not be able to speak independently of the people, because she should embody us.

Fuck all chance of that normally, so even if she's talking shit, as long as it's shit channelled from someone who is democratically elected, then hey, whoopie do!
posted by boneybaloney at 1:22 AM on December 1, 2003

nyaaaaaa. sozzies. Someone delete the first one, at least the second one was correctly spelted.
posted by boneybaloney at 1:24 AM on December 1, 2003

The Queen's speech is supposed to be entirely political. It's the, er, whole point...

"The Queen's speech is the central part of a wider ceremony known as the state opening of parliament, which marks the start of the parliamentary year. By tradition, the monarch sets out the legislation that he or she would like to see passed, in a short speech. Since the nineteenth century, this has effectively been a statement of the government's aims for the next year. Although the Queen reads it, she has no part in writing it. The speech is put together by a government committee known as futureleg - although in recent years, commentators have suspected that the government's spin doctors have a hand in it, too"

More....
posted by nthdegx at 3:50 AM on December 1, 2003

I think the royals now understand that they have to "play ball"(ala johnny dangerously)or their days of getting millions in "welfare" from the state will be OVER! Does any one doubt that if the queen mum(or any prominent royal) steps out of line that Blair's party will introduce some sort of bill to outlaw their royal entitlements? Todays UK sounds an awful lot like the uk described in L ron Hubbards "blackout"(Yes he was a looney but I feel its his best work)
posted by hoopyfrood at 7:11 AM on December 1, 2003

I'm a bit disappointed; all this time I thought the queen's speech was the last piece of royal influence in the U.K. government. A yearly opportunity for the monarch to get up and say whatever the hell they want, bring up issues they want people to think about, whatever - and then go retire back to Buckingham Palace for the rest of the year while the business of government proceeds on its own. But if the Queen has to read a speech prepared for her by the ruling party - what kind of royalty is that? What's the point of the whole business? Why not let her sit around doing whatever she does in peace, and have someone who is actually involved in the creation of the speech stand up to read it?
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:15 AM on December 1, 2003