Is this the look of someone who cares about 5G mobile coverage? (Photo by Chris Jackson - WPA Pool/Getty Images)
“My Lords and members of the House of Commons,” Her Majesty the Queen said at the State Opening of Parliament yesterday morning, “My government’s priority is to deliver a national recovery from the pandemic that makes the United Kingdom stronger, healthier and more prosperous than before. To achieve this my government will level up opportunities across all parts of the United Kingdom, supporting jobs, businesses and economic growth, and addressing the impact of the pandemic on public services.”
Never mind the two limp tricolons (“stronger, healthier… more prosperous”; “jobs, businesses… economic growth”). Never mind the bromidic language, and the all-purpose vacuity of what is being said. What really makes the heart sink is that deadly political buzz-phrase — “level up” — issuing from her Majesty’s lips. Here is a phrase which we can in no way imagine forms part of her usual vocabulary over breakfast in Windsor Castle.
And, yes, we know that the Queen’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament is never expected to be in her own words. She is a conduit for the democratically elected will of the people, or some such, as expressed by the government of the day. But still, we could at least pretend. If we can have Her Maj talk about “levelling up” why not have her go the whole nine yards and declare that “my Government got Brexit done; now it intends to introduce world-beating legislation to take back control”?
What she actually did end up saying was bad enough. I doubt seriously, for instance, that her natural turn of phrase would include “measures will be brought forward”, or “legislation to empower the NHS to innovate and embrace technology”. Whoever wrote this lacklustre speech at least spared her “our NHS” — possibly for fear that it could be mistake for the royal “we” and incite an insurrection.
The whole deal with the Queen is that she has, as every student of medieval history knows, two bodies. There’s her royal personage, incarnating centuries of British monarchy — an almost mystical thing. And there’s a nice old lady you might call Elizabeth Windsor, which is the one who wears socks, and suffers from aches and pains, and bleeds when you prick her like the rest of us. The history of her oratory is the history of how she has negotiated between those things. She’s supposed to give a human face to ceremony and a ceremonial dignity to her human person. The two just about overlap, at least rhetorically speaking.
Of course the royal person rather than the private self is to the fore at the State Opening of Parliament. The Christmas message is delivered from a cosy fireside; it is, as much as it can be, personal. The State Opening, on the other hand, is preceded by bugles. Old gents with obscure titles festooned in braid and medals shuffle about in silly hats, Black Rod hammers on the door with a baton, the Mace is formally processed, and she delivers the speech from the Great Throne.
She did her duty, as she always does. But Her Maj, to put it as forthrightly as possible, looked mightily fed up. No attempt was made to conceal that this is a speech written for her, read by her as a matter of constitutional form, and that any enthusiasm she may or may not have for the material is quite irrelevant. This was signalled in the very opening words, which she read glumly from a pamphlet with a brief upward glance at her audience but not even the hint of a twinkle.
Indeed, as she picked her way through this laundry-list of governmental aspirations, she gave every impression that she was reading the words for the very first time as she spoke them. She pronounced the phrase “5G mobile coverage and gigabit-capable broadband” as if making out the semi-legible text of a slightly distasteful translation from a foreign language. “Net zero greenhouse gas emissions” was delivered in such a way as to allow us to imagine her wondering privately, “Who writes this shit?”
That she ends up with such unwieldy political buzzphrases in her mouth is not just the fault of a careless or inept speechwriter; nor even of the unavoidable juxtaposition between a monarch born in the age of the wireless and a government in the age of WiFi. It is a symptom of the widening gap between what the monarch is intended to stand for, and the language in which politics is now conducted. To put it in Bagehot’s terms, as the “efficient” part of the constitutional settlement becomes more technocratic, so the “dignified” part becomes less dignified.
It doesn’t have to be like this. Contrast, for instance, her winning address to the joint session of congress 30 years ago this week. “I do hope you can see me today,” were her first words. Here was a disarming but quite decorous opener. She is not a tall woman, and she was speaking from behind a forest of microphones, and here she gently undercut the pomp of the occasion by reminding us that, as it were, beneath the raiment of a monarch was a real person.
On that occasion she projected respectful sincerity as she said: “I know what a rare privilege it is to address a joint meeting of your two houses. Thank you for inviting me.” She offered a strong and resonant affirmation of national fraternity (gently finessing the constitutional differences) when she said: “The concept so simply described by Abraham Lincoln as ‘government by the people, of the people, for the people’ is fundamental to our two nations. Your congress and our parliament are the twin pillars of our civilisations and the chief among the many treasures we have inherited from our predecessors. We, like you, are staunch believers in the freedom of the individual and the rule of a fair and just law.”
Thirty years on the second body is older, tireder and crosser. We know that the last year or so has made her previous “annus horribilis” look like a walk in the park. Her no-mark cousin has been caught cashing in on his royal links and cosying up to the murderous leader of a foreign power. Her favourite son is spattered with mud, and possibly worse, from his friendship with a trafficker in underage girls. Her grandson has buggered orf to the States and made it known as a parting shot that the Royal Family is an oppressive institution stuffed with racists. And she has just lost her husband of seven decades. It’s fair to assume that Elizabeth Windsor is feeling low in the water; and some of these injuries are constitutional as well as personal.
But the first body — the royal body — must go imperturbably on despite everything. If Elizabeth Windsor could sit down with Oprah and “speak her truth” I suspect she would have some very salty things to say indeed. But she never could, and she never would. This monarch is determined, for as long as she can, and whatever the cost to her soul and peace of mind, to keep the show on the road. It would befit the government to show a bit of respect for that devotion to duty. Sheesh: “Level up.” Give the poor old doll a break.
questingvole 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe 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.