From the article that starts half-way down here.
I believe there is a Christmas address every year and she addresses Parliament once per year, so I presume they mean except for those…
I figure this is one of her speeches and the one after the death of Diana was another.
What are the “three” televised speeches they are referencing?
It appears to be addressed here.
She’s given four other speeches (other than a yearly Christmas message and Openings of Parliament). They were (1) her Diamond Jubilee in 2012; (2) her mother’s death in 2002; (3) Diana’s death in 1997; and (4) the Gulf War in 1991.
Many people were not happy that she did not give a speech on Diana right away , she waited a few days.
I would have expected the Queen to have addressed the country for other reasons than just those four. Is there some reason to ration this? Is she too busy to address the country more frequently?
Because if she addresses something, it is important. The more often the PM drags her out (and the Gulf War address was undoubtedly at his request), the less impact it has.
The other three were direct effect to the the throne, so that is presumably why she addressed them.
That list of extraordinary (i.e., other than the Christmas address and the State Opening of Parliament, where she only reads a speech written by the Cabinet for her) addresses is indeed interestingly restrictive. I get the point that you don’t want to inflate away the importance of such a speech by giving them too often, but it is certainly possible to think of other events during her reign that were arguably of similar importance as those that merited a speech. The Falklands War, for instance (after all, it was a case of British territory getting invaded by a foreign nation).
Your logic is undeniable. But still, reigning for almost 40 years until her first speech? :eek:
Wow…
She’s head of state, not head of government. It’s not her function to be supportive of government measures. For example, Labour was initially critical of Thatcher’s Falklands response. The Queen shouldn’t get involved in that political debate.
Interestingly, or perhaps not, I seem to recall that it was referred to as the “Falklands Conflict” at the time, and calling it a “war” was in some way un-British/disapproved of/looked askance upon.* Odd, as there were people dashing around getting killed, but that’s how it was.
She wasn’t queen but I know she also addressed the nation on behalf of the relocated children during World War II.
I had forgotten about the Christmas message, which she does every year, and which is her chance to summarize the year and give hope for the next year. She can cover a lot of ground in one fell swoop.
I agree that if she came out every month and gave a speech that would be a bit much, but people deserve to know what she is thinking since she is Head of State and what she thinks matters to some degree.
She referenced that earlier address (80 years ago!) in her coronavirus speech, accompanied by a picture of Elizabeth and Margaret during the address.
The whole broadcast is here, on the official youtube channel
I can see that logic, but then again, the same logic would certainly have applied to the Gulf War just as much, which was also very controversial domestically. Apparently it still deserved a speech.
See the excellent movie The Queen for what led up to that. Quite interesting.
The Gulf War in 1991 was pretty well supported by the public at the time:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232862843_British_public_opinion_during_the_Gulf_war
The invasion of Iraq is now considered much more controversial (though I believe that has much to do with the benefit of hindsight).
She also gave one in Canada in 1959.
(And a short message for Canada, released on new year’s day in 2017, but I don’t know if it was televised.)
The distinctive thing is not so much giving a speech or publishing a message: that’s done frequently on visits, opening and unveiling things and so on, but would turn up on radio and TV only incidentally or filleted for news summaries - other than the Christmas speech.
What makes these few occasions different is that the fact of being broadcast directly across the major public service channels, usually simultaneously and probably interrupting previously-published schedules.
I have to say, as a republican* that I thought it was a really well-attuned speech, and showed more sense of leadership and moment than anything I’ve heard from either our Prime Minister, who is not a great set-piece speaker, or those snippets of Boris, Trump, Merkel, Macron that have made it onto the news. It helps if you’re in the job for decades and been doing these for 80 years, but now is the time you want it to help.
*in Commonwealth terms thats someone who wants to remove the monarch as the head of state, not an American type of person
She’s also thought to find this kind of speech to be a very unpleasant ordeal. A different personality might have seen television as more of an opportunity than a chore.