Yep, that’s also, aside from the coronation and official portraits, the only time we would see her sat on a throne with a crown on her head.
I see. Well then that clearly isn’t the queen “preaching” about anything. She’s reading something out on behalf of someone else. Some of which she will agree with and some of which she won’t.
I don’t think anyone in the UK thinks that the queen agrees with everything in that speech.
So she’s willing to give speeches she doesn’t agree with- why exactly?
I doubt she went out and bought a new jewel-encrusted crown just for the occasion. It was probably something she already had in her closet.
My dad’s mum, my Granny, was from Yorkshire, born in 1899, died in 1991. She always had a portrait of the Queen on the wall, and always loved HRH even though Granny was already living in the US well before Elizabeth was crowned. The news of the Queen’s passing made me sad because it made me think of my little English gran, always so sweet and gentle, with her “ee by gum” and “ee, lad,” and I’d like to think of them meeting in Heaven and Granny being happy.
It’s soppy, but I’m soppy, too.
She is head of state a part of the job is reading out what the government is going to do. Another part of the job is having conversations with said government in private where I’m sure she makes her own thoughts known.
Tha’s nowt but a soppy bugger. Get a hod a’ yersen.
Admit it, it’s like she’s in the room.
So she might be excused for being a mouth piece for the regime as she was “just following orders” or the like? And no moral choice was possible?
It sounds if anything like you’re making an argument for why we should abolish the monarchy on the basis that it dehumanizes the royals. An argument which, though somewhat less compelling to me than considering the POV of the more disadvantaged members of society and the affect such a hierarchy might have on them, I am also receptive to.
God save the Queen (by relieving her of the burdens of her crown)!
In the mid-70s, my uncle Tommy came to visit Gran and brought a (then newfangled) cassette recorder with him, and clandestinely recorded Granny talking. He played her back the tape and she said, “Ee, I don’t talk like that, do I?” 
It’s a job. Announcing what the government is planning is part of the job. She isn’t herding Jews into gas chambers, she’s reading the democratically elected government’s legislative agenda.
Because in a constitutional monarchy, it has been traditional for a long time for the head of state (the monarch or a representative, such as a governor general) to read the speech from the throne as part of the ceremony opening a parliamentary session. The name is a holdover from the days when the monarch had an active role in setting policy; in modern constitutional monarchies the speech from the throne sets out the government’s policy agenda and comes from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.
Nothing wrong with being soppy. Sentimentality shows you have feelings and positive feelings are comforting. I believe Queen Elizabeth comforted a great many people (she certainly did for my mum).
According to this article, the cost per year, per person to maintain the monarchy is £1.29 ($1.51 USD). I’d gladly pay the cost of a McDonald’s hamburger to have a queen like Elizabeth be the comforting figurehead of my country.
And that’s assuming that there’s any actual cost at all to maintaining the monarchy. While arguments have been made that there is, other arguments maintain that the monarch generates net positive revenue for the government and the economy. It seems to me that the arguments for a net cost rely on the assumption that, if the monarchy were abolished, Crown lands would be confiscated by the government. In the UK (though not in other Commonwealth countries) Crown lands are actually owned by the monarch, not privately, but as an integral part of the institution. The government received most of the rents ever since an arrangement was made with George III to surrender the income in return for an annual Sovereign Grant. However, the monarchy did not give up ownership.
’
That’s a pretty low bar, dontcha think? Not herding people into gas chambers?
Look, if she agrees with the agenda, fine. I am comfortable with judging her to be a crappy person as a consequence (both for agreeing with it, and in particular for pronouncing her agreement while surrounded by and vested in all the trappings of wealth and privilege), irrespective of the circumstances of her birth.
But if she doesn’t… then why again is she reading it? What threat is she under? That if she doesn’t read speeches she (hypothetically) might not agree with, they won’t let her continue reading speeches she doesn’t agree with?
To the extent the royals of the UK have agency, I am unimpressed with how they–and particularly QE2–have exercised it in modern times. To the extent they lack agency because the system demands that they represent the state irrespective of their own will… why do you want to keep depriving those poor folks of agency purely on account of the circumstances of their birth? It’s dehumanizing…
What do you think “just following orders” is in reference to, if not the Nuremberg Trials?
It’s her job. Everybody’s job has bits they don’t like, everybody reports to somebody, and if that somebody says “we’re doing X” and you don’t happen to think X is the best choice, the answer isn’t to tell that somebody to fuck off.
You know what happens to the Queen when she tells Parliament to go fuck themselves? She stops being Queen, she loses whatever influence she may have had, and overnight turns into a rich old lady with an ugly hat. Let’s also be crystal clear here, for all that the UK loved QE2, nobody elected her to decide things, very few, if any, really wanted her to be a decision maker in the government. What they wanted was for her to do her damn job, be the Queen, read the things she supposed to read, be the Head of State and greet dignitaries, spread good will and cheer at Christmas, etc.
That’s what she did.
So that is the only reason she read speeches she didn’t agree with? Although this is the Pit, I’ll stifle myself.
She’s reading out the agenda of the democratically elected government, she isn’t ticking off the actioned items at Wannsee.
I think a little perspective is in order, or perhaps the reference to the “Nuremberg defense” was accidental or a joke.
No, let it out. You’re going to criticize her for liking the job of being Queen, for not throwing that job, and the entire concept of the job, away because part of the job means giving a speech outlining a legislative agenda that she doesn’t personally agree with.
I hate to break it to you, but I frequently present budgets and forecasts that I don’t agree with, because it’s my job to present them.
When MAGA-types scream about throwing out all norms of American democracy they get quickly pitted for being idiots who don’t understand how government works.
When the Queen of England does her actual job by staying apolitical and not overthrowing all norms of British government, she gets pitted because she doesn’t live up to wish-fulfillment fantasies.
Ah well, if we didn’t have double standards we wouldn’t have any standards at all.
That’s even more reason for people not to complain about the British monarchy. If we (the Royal “we” 
) want to blame British kings and queens for bad political policy, we can only do so legitimately by going back centuries before the Magna Carta began the process of reducing their power.
My reasons for keeping the British Monarchy:
They do no harm.
They focus national pride and identity.
They maintain a sense of national continuity and tradition.
They give official recognition to acts of excellence.
They engage in unifying ceremonies, including opening Parliament every session.
They host, wine, and dine foreign heads-of-state and dignitaries.
They support and encourage volunteer efforts.
They comfort their subjects in times of need (e.g. the Blitz of WWII).
Even royal family fuck-ups give Brits something to gossip about and compare themselves favorably to: “maybe I drink too much, but at least I don’t get plastered like Princess Margaret!”; “maybe I fraternize too much with the ladies, but at least I don’t diddle kids like Prince Andrew!”
And apparently (if this thread is a gauge), they act as scapegoat effigies for bad policy they had nothing to do with, can do nothing about, nor publicly harshly criticize, lest they create division and bad feelings within government. I believe they do express their feelings but do so in proper British fashion, behind closed doors.
And Brits get all this for a cost of nothing or next to nothing? Well, sign me up because that’s a bargain.